1999 (1998) (2000) (1990-2000) (2000-2010) Table of Contents
Carolyn Elayne Alexander Images of America: Venice, Arcadia: San Francisco, CA 2004 (1999), 128pp., 1920 , 1917, 1870s See Text
Francis Frascina Art, politics and dissent: Aspects of the art left in sixties America, Manchester University Press: Manchester and New York, 1999, 248 pp., 1999, 1997, 1966, 1965, 1960s, 1950s, Forward, See Text
Jim Heimann Sins of the City: The Real Los Angeles Noir, Chronicle Books: San Francisco, CA, 1999, 159pp., 1947, 1940s, 1930s, 1926, 1925, 1920s, 1871, 1850s See Text
Historic Santa Monica City Hall ( A guide to), Santa Monica and the Getty Trust, 2004 (The free brochure is available at the Information Desk in the lobby at City Hall. It may also be seen on-line at santa.monica.org/cm/PDF/HistoricGuide.pdf.) See Text
L.A. As Subject: Cultural Inheritance: A Directory of Less-Visible Archives and Collections in the Los Angeles Region, The Getty Research Institute fot the History of Art and the Humanities: Los Angeles, CA, 1999, 324 pp. See Text
Joslyn Park, 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati* See Image
Ocean Park Blvd. at the Fourth St. Overpass, Welkin 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati* See Image
Ocean Park Library, 1999, Photograph by Rick Laudati* See Image
Sixth and Ocean Park Blvd, 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati* See Image
2405 Third St., 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati* See Image
Harold Osmer & Phil Harms Real Road Racing: The Santa Monica Road Races, Harold L. Osmer Publishing: Chatsworth, CA 1999, 1911, 1910,1910s See Text
City of Santa Monica (1999) Article 9 Planning and Zoning Chapter 9.36 Landmarks and Historic Districts 9.36.010 Title. This Chapter shall be known as the Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica. (Prior code § 9600; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91) See Text
Merrill Shindler & Karen Berk (eds.) with Gretchen Kurz ZagatSurvey: Los Angeles, So. California Restaurants, Zagat: NY, 1999. See Text
Shotgun House, circa 1899 See Text
Andrea Schulte-Peevers and David Peevers Los Angeles, Lonely Planet: Oakland, 2nd ed., 1996(1999), 351pp., 1999, 1996, 1990s, 1983, 1980s, 1979, 1970s, 1967, 1960s, 1950s, 1940s, 1934, 1930, 1920s, 1916, 1880s See Text
Linda J. Tomko Dancing Class: Gender, Ethnicity and Social Divide in American Dance, 1890-1920, Indiana University Press, 1999, 284 pp.
Nina and Tim Zagat ZagatSurvey 1999: America's Top Restaurants, 236 pp., 1999 See Text
Documents
Carolyn Elayne Alexander Images of America: Venice, Arcadia: San Francisco, CA 2004 (1999), 128pp., 1920
Dedicated to Kendrick Kinney, son of Innes (third son of Abbot and Margaret, who ran the U.S.C. Marine Biological Research Station,) and Helen Kinney and grandson of Abbot and Margaret Kinney, who worked at M.G.M. on such films as The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind and was nominated for an Academy Award for Sound Editor for The Wreck of the Mary Deere.
Acknowledgments include Thornton Kinney, Abbot Kinney's eldest, was married to Mabel Cohen, co-founder of the Church of Religious Science along with Earnest Holmes, brother of the Reverend Fenwicke L. Holmes, of the Venice Union Church; Jack and Mary Kinney, and Michael Steen of the Woodlawn Cemetary.
Introduction:
Abbot Kinney [1850-1920],* son of Franklin Kinney and Mary Cogswell, attended Columbia University, and then the University of Heidelberg, the Sorbonne, and various Swiss schools, all the while suffering from asthma. He formed the Kinney Brothers Tobacco Company in his mid-twenties with his brother, Francis, using his multi-linguistic skills as foreign buyer. On one such trip he docked in San Francisco (1880) and traveled south to Los Angeles and from there to East Pasadena and the Sierra Madre Villa Hotel, a hotel and sanitarium. Finding it salubrious, he built an estate (1881) nearby which he called Kinneloa, improving many new strains of fruit, especially the blood orange. He failed to win a seat in the State Legislature but did win the hand of Margaret Thornton* [ -1911] daughter of State Supreme Court Justice William Dabney Thornton. Kinneloa didn't suit her in the summer months and they built Mayflower Cottage at Marguerita and Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. Abbot sold his tobbacco company shares to his brother enabling him to speculate in land and development, including Abbotsford Inn and the Boyle Heights Cable Railway. Kinney, a California men's tennis single's champion, wrote numerous books, founded libraries and chaired a Yosemite Committee. He accompanied Helen Hunt Jackson on her trip to Indian country, which resulted in the book Ramona. In Santa Monica he met Francis Ryan* and they formed a land development partnership which purchased Rancho La Ballona. " . . . they built a walk/fishing pier in the Ocean Park section of Santa Monica, developed a commercial street, a family entertainment casino, and a bandstand." Ryan died in 1898. Matilda Ryan* married T.H. Dudley* six months later. In 1899 the Dudley's sold their share to four men, also with whom Kinney couldn't agree, so they split the Ocean Park property half of which was developed. Kinney chose the undeveloped half, . . . "Although the area was called Venice, it was really part of the Ocean Park district of Santa Monica until 1911, when residents voted to break away from the mother town and become an independent city." Abbot Kinney remarried in 1914 to Winifred Harwell and they had two children, Helen (who married Jack Gerety, the son of Venice's mayor) and Clan, who was briefly married to an Al G. Barnes Circus elephant rider named Patricia Clancy.
[Page 14 Two photos. At the top, the walking and fishing pier built by Francis G. Ryan and Abbot Kinney; at the bottom, 1044-Ocean Park, picturing the Ocean Park Pier at Pier Avenue, c. 1903, with a bandshell and casino, with a cigar stand and soda water and ice cream window. On the bandstand is a sign for the Examiner newspaper.]
[Page 28 Photos identify the U.S. Life Saving Corps, led by Captain George Douglas Freeth, in 1908, who received a Congressional Medal of Honor for rescuing six people. Abbot Kinney professionalized this service. At the bottom, "Children's dancing lessons were held inside the [Venice] Pier Auditorium to a live orchestra]
[Page 32 " . . . Because of the early century prejudices against minorities, Caucasians were permitted to ride in any of the watercraft, while African Americans were restricted to boats painted black.]
[Page 33 No date: "Manfredi Chiaffarelli, center, led the Venice-of-America Band in the Pavilion. He and his family were brought from Italy specifically to fill this city post, but after his 14-year-old daughter, Wilhelmina, was tragically killed in 1914, he resigned and accepted another orchestra leader's position in Santa Monica."]
[p.41 "In 1917, Cesare LaMonica* took up the baton for the Venice Band, whose members were Italian immigrants. La Monica was a well-known and loved musician in the Santa Monica Bay district, but when World War I was declared, he was arrested as a "slacker." He explained that he had not known about enlistment and immediately volunteered.]
[p. 59 "Children's beauty contests were embraced with an immense amount of enthusiasm by parents in Venice and the neighboring district of Ocean Park. Some kiddies dresssed in costume, while others just wore their best Sunday dress."]
[p. 61 "Mr. and Mrs. James T. Peasgood Sr.*, . . .their home on Electric Avenue. He was the street superintendent of the City of Santa Monica and is shown here with his second wife, Ellen. The house still stands in the 1600 block of Electric Avenue in Venice." His daughter was Cathryn and her brother was James Jr., city treasurer of Venice who embezzled $18,000 before being sent to prison. He was released after a year and pardoned by the governor.]
[p. 64 Henry Winebrenner, Venice High School Art Department Head with sculpture which was toppled in 1929.]
[p. 67 Top photo: "Venice City Hall, left was constructed in 1906, and because residents were angry that it was so far away from town center, they said it was "far away as Tokio" and nicknamed it "Tokio City Hall." On the right is the 1920s police station with a prisoner dropoff point at the portico." The bottom photo: Six Santa Monica Bay piers are pictured here. They are, from the background moving to the foreground, as follows: Santa Monica, Bristol, Ocean Park/Lick, Venice, and Sunset (angled.)]
[p. 69 "Venice High School girls celebrated Mayday, c. 1924. Beatrice Owens*, front row, right, later won the title of Miss Ocean Park and went on to a career in the final days of vaudeville on the Orpheum Circuit, on stage, and in the movies."]
[p. 78 "The Santa Monica Dairy, also called Edgemar Farms, was founded by a Swiss immigrant, Herman Michel*, in 1880. The creamery progressed from horse-drawn milk carts to trucks and later to vans before the sons gave up the Rose Avenue establishment in the 1960s. Michel also served as the mayor of Santa Monica . . . ]
[p. 83 ff. Arthur Reese, the first African American to live and work in Venice, came to Venice from New Orleans in 1905, and built a house in the new section of town, Oakwood, along with his cousin Irving Tabor who became Abbot Kinney's chauffeur and inherited Kinney's house. Reese was named town decorator by Abbot Kinney, and produced the annual Mardi Gras.]
[P.97 The advent of the 1940s saw little change in Venice economy. Things were still sliding. Needed repairs to the colonnades and the streets were not made. The Kinney Company was not clearing enough profit to upgrade the pier, and a group of lawyers had stepped in to control what was left. The most viable business on the pier was the Ballroom with its exhausting dance marathons."]
[P. 101 "The Rex was another ship anchored off the Venice Pier. It was three miles out into the bay due to anti-gambling laws in Los Angeles County, but there was a difference of opinion as to where the shoreline was located in the bay. Here, authorities fight to board the Rex and close operations and are held off with fire hoses. After a three-day siege, the crew ran out of food and drinking water and surrendered."}
[P.103 Top photo: "Psychics, fortune-tellers, and other clairvoyant concessionaires were always permitted on the pier, but his middle-aged woman, dressed to the nines, was the first handwriting analyst given a license. . . . Bottom: Film Shoot: "A Hollywood film crew shot a small replica train on the beach at Rose and Ocean Front Walk for an unknown movie. The tall white building in the background was the hotel from which Aimee Semple MacPherson*, founder of the Foursquare Church, disappeared in the 1920s . . ."]
[P. 110 "If nothing else is to be said for the Beat era in Venice, it was the advent of the artistic and literary communities, which still exist today. Beyond Baroque Literary Foundation is based in the 1906 City Hall. Mural art is recorded by the Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC) centered in the old police station. The mural shown was the first in Venice {near the corner of Pacific and Brooks by the Venice Fine Arts Squad.]
[P. 111 Top photo: Other more sophisticated murals have been painted since the first one, such as this beautiful Windward Avenue building by Art Mortimer* in the 1970s. SPARC gives selective and interesting van-driven art tours. Bottom photo caption: "In Santa Monica, a group of physical culturists assembled an informal group in the 1930s, known as Muscle Beach. Weightlifters and acrobats performed on the beach until the city tired of crowds and prohibited performances in 1958. . . . ]
[P.112 Top photo: "Muscle men worked out on the beach, developing a craze that swept the nation. It was the beginning of the Jack LaLanne movement, . . . Arnold Schwartzenegger* and Hulk Hogan . . . ]
[PP. 116, 117, 118 Paddle tennis, basketball, gymnastics, handball, surfing, bicycling, rollerskating, skateboarding . . . ]
[P. 121 . . . murals on the building at the corner of Dudley and Ocean Front Walk . . . ]
[P. 126 . . . (Los Angeles) Councilwoman Ruth Galanter* . . .]
[P. 128 Carolyn Elayne Alexander . . . author, photographer, producer, president of the Venice Historical Society, honored in 1994 by the California Conference of Historical Societies
Francis Frascina Art, politics and dissent: Aspects of the art left in sixties America, Manchester University Press: Manchester and New York, 1999, 248 pp., 1999, 1997, 1965, 1964, 1960s, 1948
Introduction: researching alternative histories of the art left
[p. 1] . . .
[p. 2] Specific images of two sites signify major aspects of the research for the book. . . . The first image, familiar to many art historians, is the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, on the outskirts of Los Angeles . . .
The museum, including the research center, is one of seven programmes of the John Paul Getty Trust, a private operating foundation devoted to the visual arts. It has enormous financial backing . . . [filled with objécts]. High Security, a booking systems for visits and all of the idyllic control of cultural selection confirming its status within the paradoxical character of modern museums. A new much larger Getty Center for the History and the Humanities and a museum, twice the size of the present one, [p. 3] opened in 1997, just down the freeway . . . the research institute was described in the Getty Calendar (Winter, 1995) as a "think tank that gathers researchers from different disciplines and stimulates them to communicate with each other by ways they otherwise wouldn't." The phrase "think tank" has often been used to describe the RAND (Research ANd Development) Corporation, a research institution, a few miles down the coast in Santa Monica, with similarly high levels of financial backing and security. Here since 1948 when RAND became a corporation with the help of various sources of funding including a grant of $1 million from the nascent Ford Foundation, researchers from different disciplines have been provided to stimulate them to communicate with each other and provide theoretical models on many different topics . . .
With a major influence on stategic military planning since the Second World War and particularly during the sixties, the RAND Corporation's role in the escalation of United States action in Southeast Asia led artists to picket the Corporation's building in 1964 . . . In Los Angeles the institutions of "culture" have long been connected to those other institutions in southern California that, in various ways, serve the industrial militiary complex of the United States.
The museum as an archive, repository, container, guardian of the canon of critical approval is one of the conventional sites for art and design history. The museum is, for many researchers, a site of abundance, of plentitude, of pleasure. It provides an array of objects for study, interpretation and explanation. From a variety of specializing perspectives, it is a confirmation of 'presence' with more than enough potential for cultural historians to provide critical texts on 'absense.' With the John Paul Getty Museum we have intimate relationships between corporate capital, the oil business, the power of family dynasties in the United States, possessive individualism and obsessive accumulation. This . . . is . . . not many miles away from . . . the district of Watts, a heartland of economic deprivation and racist oppression in central Los Angeles. In August 1965, a few years before the Getty re-creation was begun, Watts was in flames, in protest; an urban parallel to the rural centers of 'Civil Rights campaigns in the South. This was less than two months after the Artists' Protest Committee in Los Angeles had targeted the RAND Corporation, the recently opened Los Angeles County Art Museum and "art gallery row" on North La Cienega Boulevard, in a series of portraits primarily against United States military action in Vietnam.
[p. 4] My second site will be less familiar . . . in West Hollywood, Los Angeles, this site is seeming unspectacular . . . The conventional "presence" of museum culture-legitimation and memorial-is absent. That which was at this site in February 1966, the "Artist's Tower of Protest," of "Peace Tower," at the junction of La Cienega and Sunset Blvd.'s, was dedicated with speeches by the artist Irving Petlin, ex-Green-Beret Master-Sergeant Donald Duncan, writer Susan Sontag, and the releasing by children of doves . . . Including work by 418 artists, this collective memorial had to be defended night and day against attacks by those who regarded such manifestations as un-American and at best a collusion with the "Communist menace," in Vietnam . . . Several of the defenders of the Tower were young men from Watts . . . In June 1965, two months before the outburst of dissent in Watts, the journal Ramparts observed that American neo-colonialist ambitions were mirrored by injustices and oppressions at home.
[p. 5] . . . .
[p. 6] There were thousands of visitors to the Artist's Tower of Protest which was significantly 'other' both to art institutions, such as the Los Angeles County Art Museum, and to the creative institutions of corporate capital, such as the RAND Corporation. Some visitors drove up from the galleries along La Cienega Boulevard having seen recent exhibitions of artists active in the Tower project, for example Mark di Suvero, Irving Petlin and Judy Gerowitz (Judy Chicago). Others came to see what artists associated with the radical Ferus Gallery and "Beat Culture," such as Wallace Berman, Jess (Collins) and Jay de Fero, were doing with Abstract Expressionists, Pop Artists and realists from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) era of the 1930s. Some of them were recipients of Wallace Berman's Semina, an alternative manifestation to the world of art journals such as Art Forum, then with its offices above the Ferus Gallery. Other visitors included Ken Kesey and his "Merry Pranksters" with their Day-Glo bus travelling around the West Coast conducting public "acid-tests," accompanied by amplified rock music, strobe lights and free-form dance. Yet others were Marines from San Diego wanting to smash the whole thing down. [When Ed Kienholz's retrospective [opened] at the new Los Angeles County Museum of Art with large controversies about pornography, sedition and censorship, the debate never included the threatened Tower of Protest. Similarly artist's protests in New York over the next few years have failed to be represented in the canonical processes of journals, museums, galleries, critics and art dealers. This book seeks to redress these failures and to examine "reconstruction" and "memory."]
[p. 7] Three broad aims of the book: 1) to consider some of the collective projects marginalized in dominant histories, by institutionalized processes of legitimation [collective critiques of institutional power and their institutional suppression . . .]; 2) to consider some of the contradictions and paradoxes wiithin the "art left" based in Los Angeles from the early and mid 1960s, and New York from the mid to late 1960s. 3) My third broad aim is to add to the existing archaeology of knowledge of the period with a research methodology informed by a range of interdisciplinary emphases: oral histories, archival histories, personal recollections, public records, newspapers, journals and magazines.
"From one point of view this book is a series of detailed discussions of tangled moments and events. The texture of that detail is crucial if generalizations and the ironing our of paradoxes and contradictions are to be avoided. From another point of view, the chapters of this book constitute an anthology of texts, of theorized recoveries of aspects of the 1960s. In that sense they are examples of methodologies with a base, a starting point, in the social histories of art. As a work of history , selections and emphases are both the limits and the transgressions that make [p. 8] contributions to knowledge possible . . . My interests are rooted in marginalisation, in the products of dislocation and the construction of identities through the interchange of official ideologies and the demands of subcultural contingencies.
"The four case studies that contitute the main sections of this book are inseparable from reconsiderations of the processes of memory and loss, the hitsorical roots of paradox and contradiction in the 1960s seemingly severed by the draw of dominant spectacular commodities in the 1990s. Remembering, recalling, narrating are processes with responsibilites both in the past and to the present. The responsibilities include care in reclaiming, in rubbing the grime from, the textured grain of "then" as distinct from official representations: memorials codified, pristine and normalized (6)
[p. 6] . . . In different ways the work of Noam Chomsky, James Young and James Clifford has addressed the effects of erasure in normalized histories . . .
[p. 8] . . .
[p. 10] . . . [Times Square, New York, April, 1994] . . . the name NIXON blurs past . . . Medical bulletins on the former President Nixon, terminally ill, mixed with the other headlines from Bosnia. Nixon conjures up a number of references: he has been an anti-Communist hawk in the late 1940s, and [p. 11] 1950s as supporter of the political right and then as Vice President during the early Cold War years of the 1950s he made his name in the Alger Hiss case, pursuing a demolition of a mixture of class status and political otherness; was narrowly defeated by John F. Kennedy in 1960; elected as President in 1968 but was forced to resign in 1974, the first president to do so, in the wake of evidence of corruption known as the Watergate scandal. He was also responsible for the escalation of the Vietnam War with the bombing of Cambodia in 1970 and presided over attacks aimed both at the television networks, for their news reports on anti-war events, and at student protestors, most infamously the killing by the Natiional Guard of four students demonstrating at Kent State University against United States action in Vietnam and Cambodia in April 1970.
" . . .
[p. 12] . . . In 1969 in the wake of Woodstock, many in both the "silent majority" and the "counter-culture" had forgotten Nixon's early Cold War participation. Yet, hawkish anti-communism and an antipathy to all he regarded as inconsistent with "American ideals and principles" made him a particular figure within the haunted memories of those in the Old Left who recalled in 1969 and [p. 13] 1970 the legacy of McCarthyism.
In 1994, in Times Square that memory too was potentially obscured, distracted by the spectacular site and the imminent recovery of "President Nixon" in the obituaries and the eulogy by President Clinton . . .
Chapter: 'We Dissent': the Artists' Protest Committee and representation in/of Los Angeles
Introduction
The mythical status of Los Angeles has been in constant production and transformation. For many it is Lotusland, LaLaLand, a city which the visual arts are governed by a "sunshine muse", a pursuit of hedonistic indifference to politics and social injustice. Reliance on the urban freeway and monadic insularity of the all-consuming and polluting car has, further, led writers to refer to the city as the "ecology of evil". In 1972 Peter Plagens used this latter phrase to characterise the substance of the city often conventionally represented by the images of succulent palm trees and glistening chrome. His incisive article in the pages of Artforum, based in New York since June 1967 but first published in the San Francisco in 1962 and then in Los Angeles from October 1965 provided a necessary corrective to the image of Los Angeles as the unproblematic product of a 1960s boom; an image of a consumerist dream come true, in which artists, art patrons and new museums constructed the elements of a rival center to New York-a centre of "pop-chic"and technological bravura.
Plagen's Ecology of Evil was an important landmark, with arguments and analyses which were further developed by Mike Davis in his City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles, published in 1990. However, two years after his socio-cultural critique of Los Angeles and representations of it, Plagens published Sunshine Muse: Contemporary Art on the West Coast, which is a more conventional history of the visual culture of that city. Although Plagens, a Los-Angeles-based critic in the 1960s, provides a first hand account of art and artists, Sunshine Muse is devoid of the perspectives and methodology that characterize his earlier artlcle. Not only are examples of events and works produced by, for instance, the Artist's Protest Committee in 1965 and 1966 absent, but also the politics of both recent and contemproary counter-culture and the activist side of Los Angeles visual culture are neglected. The difference between Plagens' article and his book is not an unexpected paradox. It is, rather, a significant characteristic of transformations and developments in intellectual activity in the United States since the Second World [p. 16] War. A parallel on the East Coast . . . Both in Los Angeles and New York, artists and intellectuals engaged wtih relationships between art, culture and politics in paradoxical, if not, contradictory ways.
My aim . . . is to excavate part of the art community's past in Los Angeles in the mid-1960s. In 1965, in the midst of the Johnson administration's first hundred days, legislation for the progressive reforms of the "Great Society" was being passed at home while abroad there was a major escalation of the war in Vietnam and United States interventions variously pursued in the Dominican Republic and Indonesia. Consumerist expectations, increasing affluence for some groups and support for progressive legislation was matched by a growing collective dissent, most intensely focused on U.S. foreign policy and interventions. The year 1965 was also a major one for Civil Rights in which the interconnections between racisn, economic oppression and social inequalities produced struggles and protests with one urban irruption in the heart of Los Angeles itself: the "Watts Riots" in the August of that year. The range of critical responses to these contemporary events demonstrate the difficulties and problems of articulating political consciousness within a post-McCarthyite culture hostile to such utterances. Artists and intellectuals were, like many other groups, caught up in the dilemmas of these situations and in finding ways of combining a broad historical understanding of postwar developments with effective responses to new developments with which they disagreed. Their dissent was manifest both through the "non-compliance" of members of a burgeoning counter culture at odds with the moral, social, sexual and political norms of Cold War America and through organized interventions by artists, writers, and intellecutals who called for Americans "to end your silence." It is an example of the latter which I want to examine as a specific instance the work of the Artist's Protest Committee, a large collective formed in 1965 and active throughout that year in a variety of projects, the most spectacular completed in eary 1966.
The Persistence of Memory
At noon on Saturday 26 February, 1966, the Artist's Tower of Protest, or Peace Tower, at the junction of La Cienega and Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, was dedicated with speeches by the artist Irving Petlin, ex-Green-Beret-Master-Sergeant Donald Duncan, writer Susan Sontag, and [p. 17] the release by young children of six white doves to symbolize peace. The Tower, designed and built under the direction of the scuptor Mark di Suvero and the architect Kenneth H. Dillon, was a steel octahedron, tetrahedron, and double tetrahedron tensional configuration painted yellow and purple. It was 58 feet 4 inches high and surrounded by 418 two-foot-square works by individual artists. These were attached four-deep high above the ground on a continuous hundred-foot billboard wall , which stretched either side and in a U shape behind the Tower: and may have included: Elaine de Kooning, Herbert Berber, Sam Francis, Judy Gerowitz, Lloyd Hamrol, Roy Lichenstein, Robert Motherwell, Lee Mullican, Ad Reinhardt, Larry Rivers, Jim Rosenquist, Mark Rothko, Frank Stella, George Segal, Jack Zajac, Philip Evergood, George Sugarman, Claes Oldenberg, Cesar, Karel Appel, Jean Helion, Leon Golub. Organized by the Artists' Protest Committee, the specific site, structure, installation and relationship between elements constituted the "work" which no longer exists except in fragments; mostly contemporary visual and verbal representations and the accounts of participants. The definition of what constituted the "work" was and is contentious. For many participants, the production and duration of display of the Artist's Tower of Protest was an "event," with the Tower and all of the 418 panels representing the antithesis of conventional notions of "art" and its commodification.
After three months of protecting the Tower, twenty-four hours a day, against attacks and counter-protests, the Artists' Protest Committee had to contend with the landlord of the rented site refusing to renew the lease . . . [Possible relocation sites included:] Pasadena Art Museum, Walter Hopps, acting Director, Pasadena Art Museum; Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara; The Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.] [p. 18] It was decided to break the Tower up.
In 1966, Hopps was struggling with the Pasadena trustees' discomfort with his radical reputation first forged as founder of the Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles in 1957 and then as a curator of innovative exhibitions at the [Pasadena Art] Museum. In 1965, too, he had been embroiled in the complications of the activities of the United States Information Agency (USIA) in promoting United States values through the exhibition of the work of national artists at the VIII Bienal de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Hopps selected and organized the United States exhibition for the Pasadena Museum chosen to represent the country. Petlin also recalls the complex efforts to secure an alternative site, including plans to airlift the Tower by helicopter to Pasadena or to the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Santa Barbara, Hopps and the collector Ed Janss being instrumental. Hopps was also in negotiations with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, a relatively left-wing "think tank". Eventually, the frame of the tower was cut up into one-foot pieces, their ends clipped and then compressed into individual "pillows" for those present at the dismantling. The two-foot-square panels were wrapped in brown paper and sold anonymously in a lottery organized by the Los Angeles Peace Center, raising about $12,000.
The history of the production and the reception of the Tower is significant not least because of its status as a collective work, as a "monument" and as an interventionist "event." However, in dominent accounts and institutions of "modern art" such aspects make the Tower of marginal interest: it no longer exists to be curated, conserved and exhibited; it was prompted by political protest, even "tendency;" its collective production remainders pradigmatic issues of authenticity and authorship; its first context was a "counter-culture" which was critical of those institutions dedicated to the preservation of official and consensual cultural values. In 1966, it was these very areas of "marginal interest" that provided the bases of alternative, even oppositional possibilities. Then, measures of the sign value of the Tower included the relative effectiveness, the appropriateness, the creative power of the "work" as a representation of artists' and intellectuals' response to currently pressing social and political issues. Importantly, in the early Cold War it was the first and, on this scale, only time when artists in Los Angeles realized the power of political co-operation in the production of art. Prior to 1965, the various strands of artistic activity in southern California were apolitical with respect to the conventional institutions and traditions of political activity. There did exist a small, highly influential social and cultural nexus of artists and poets in Los Angeles and San Francisco, in the 1950s and early 1960s, whose politics were rooted in the legacies of bohemia and [p. 19] the avant-garde of Dada and Surrealism and transformed by a specific counter-cultural formation. These artists are often associated with what has been called "Beat Culture." Recent historical and political recovery of such artists' work can be signalled, initially, by citing the title of a publication, from 1992, Wallace Berman: Suppot the Revolution, which is part of a larger body of recent literature on the period. Some of the "Beat Culture" artists, including Berman, participated in the Tower partly because for them the "dissent" it represented was not determined by institutional or careerist interests. This was important for such artists, who regarded this manner of collective dissent as crucial both to the anti-war movement and to a critique of the capitalist fascination with the cult of artistic persona characteristic of the gallery and the museum system.
The Tower, the activities of the Artists' Protest committee and many parallel events on the the East Coast, have become marginalized, made absent even, in many texts that purport to offer an alternative to conventional histories . . . One [possible reason] . . . is the product of a contradictory strata in the political, social and cultural life of many American intellectuals on the left . . .
[p. 20] The Formation of the Artists' Protest Committee and the origins of the Tower
First news of the project was made public in a letter to the Los Angeles Free Press, on 26 November 1965, from Irving Petlin: "The need to discover some unique distinctive manner in which we as artists could express our protest against the drift of American foreign policy in Vietnam has been a primary source of discussion since the formation of the Artists' Protest Committee . . . Two months later, the project and its confirmed location were reported as part of Grace Glueck's Art Notes in the The York Times (30 January 1966) . . . Glueck . . . named di Suvero as the designer of the Tower, and quoted Petlin, "We expect hostility and are warning artists that their work may be destroyed . . . "
[p. 21] Within weeks of Petlin's letter in the Los Angeles Free Press, there appeared a . . . poster, A Call From the Artists of Los Angeles, produced by Hardy Hanson . . . The top half . . . an image of a Vietnamese family-followed by "a partial list of supporting artists." [This list included artists, writers, critics, curators and gallery owners.][30]
Footnote 30: p. 50
John Altoon; Rudolf Baranik; Larry Bell; Paul Brach; Helen Breger; Arnaldo Coen; Allen d'Archangelo; Elaine de Kooning; Dijon Dillon; Ken Dillon; Mark di Suervo; Bella Feldman; Herbert Ferber; Llyn Foulkes; Sam Francis; Judy Gerowitz; Leon Golub; Leonel Gongora; Lloyd Hamerol; Hardy TeHanson; Francisco Icaza; Donald Judd; Wolf Kahn; Howie Kanowitz; Richard Kliz; Max Kozloff; Roy Lichtensteinn; Phil Leider; Ivan Majdrakoff; Robert Mallory; Charles Mattox; Robert McChesney; Arnold Mesches; Robert Motherwell; Lee Mulligan; Rolf Nelson; Frank O'Hara; Miguel Hernandez Orben; Jacques Overhoff; Julia Pearl; Irving Petlin; Patrick Proctor; Byron Randall; Ad Reinhardt; Mario Orozco Rivera; Larry Rivers; Jim Rosenquist; Mark Rothko; Frank Stella; Hassel Smith; Arthur Seconda; George Segal; Artemio Sepulveda; George Sugarman; Maurice Tuchman; John Weber; Charles White; Jim Wines; Adja Yunkers, Jack Zajac.
[p. 21] . . . "We, as artists consider the construction of the Tower Against the War in Vietnam as the most appropriate method to register our protest againt the continuing senseless slaughter in Vietnam. This action will make our voice heard as no debate, no demonstration, no newspaper advertisement could. Here we speak in a manner native to us as artists."
. . .
Two groups, with major roots in New York, had been formed more or less at the same time, in early 1965, to discuss the possibilities of collective protest against the war in Vietnam. . . . [They] sponsored a large-format protest statement in The New York Times entitled End Your Silence, and signed by 407 writers and artists . . . The prime movers were writers linked to The Nation, in particular Denise Levertov and the novelist Mitchell Goodman . . . A group of painters, including Rudolf Baranik, [p. 23], Elaine de Kooning, Ad Reinhardt and Anthony Toney, who were also preparing their own statement, joined the protest. End Your Silence was placed by The New York Times below a report on The C.I.A. and How It Grew, detailing some of the Agency's covert activities. Two pages later . . . 16,916 Protestant Clergymen Say- Initiate Negotiations Now . . . the front page of the same edition of the New York Times, Johnson Refuses to Halt Bombings; Again Asks Talks, . . . on the base of the page 15,000 White House Pickets Denounce Vietnam War, . . . reporting a picket of the White House on 17 April, organized by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and including Women Strike for Peace, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and several Civil Rights organizations . . . two reasons for the second protest letter so soon after the first . . . the United States' invasion of the Dominiican Republic and signals of an impending escalation of action in Vietnam . . .
[p. 24] . . .
. . . sufficient support was received to go ahead wtih the second "Artist Protest" in the New York Times [Sunday, 27 June 1966], 579 signatures . . .
[p. 25] [25 July 1966, a full-page rebuttal] the neoconservative institution Freedom House, based in New York. The Silent Center Must Speak Up! . . . claimed the list contained names of avowed Communists and others who were not Communists but while they believed they were working for peace had allowed themselves to be used in an insidious propaganda campaign . . .
The invitation to participate in the Tower suggested that the voice of artists could not be heard effectively in such newspaper advertisements. It also suggested that "debate" and "demonstration" were similarly limited in effect. Again, this was based on recent experiences. Irving Petlin, like Leon Golub and Nancy Spero, had lived in Paris in the late 1950s and 1960s when intellectuals needed to find ways to circumvent institutional failures to protest effectively against French colonialism. Petlin had, for example, witnessed the drafting in the back of a Parisian art gallery, of the Manifesto of 121 signed by French intellectuals in 1960 advocating "insubordination" to France's colonial war in Algeria. In 1965, Petlin, then teaching at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), attempted to mobilize artists in protest against what he, and others, regarded as the early stages of an immoral, dirty and shameful United States parallel to French activity in Algeria and, prior to 1954, Indochina. Los Angeles had traditionally been a city without organized political activity, at least not in comparison to European cities and not even to that which characterized New York. San Francisco was marginally different, wtih protests against the Un-American Activities Committee of the United States Congress, but it was, arguably, the small bohemian community of California that fostered values of liberty and dissent taken up by the New Left in the 1960s. On the other hand, there was a politicized character to the postwar economy of southern California which was military and [p. 26] scienced-based. California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) in Pasadena provided a focus that produced the Los Angeles aerospace industry. As Mike Davis (City of Quartz)argues:
"Nowhere else in the country did there develop such a seamless continuum between the corporation, laboratory and classroom as in Los Angeles, where Cal Tech via continuous cloning and spinoff become the hub of a vast wheel of public-private research and development that eventually included the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Hughes Aircraft (the world center of airborne electronics), the Air Force's Space Technology Laboratory, Aerojet General (a spinoff of the latter), TRW, the Rand Institute and so on."
Ferus and the politics of the Los Angeles art community
Two major observations loomed large in Petlin's conversations with like-minded artists, poets, playwrights and intellectuals about protests against United States involvement in Vietnam in the heartland of military and profit-driven southern California. First, there was no institutional support for protest or for the use and display of visual culture in a critical and political way. Second, high culture was an important activity, process and pleasure for its participants and collectors, many of whom were in the military and science-based corporations and institutes. Could artists subject this high culture to a shudder, or even more fundamentally remove it from its lovers? Petlin was aware that one way of finding out whether Los Angeles artists were prepared to engage in such debate and potential action was to test the attitudes of those who had been associated with the Ferus Gallery. Opened by Ed Kienholz and Walter Hopps in 1957 on La Cienega Boulevard, it was regarded in the late 1950s and early 1960s as the avant-garde artists' gallery of the West Coast. Within a year and a half of opening, Hopps found a new partner, Irving Blum, with commercial experience, and moved the gallery to "a perfectly designed Beverly Hills setting, "across the street." In 1962 Hopps became curator and soon acting director of the small Pasadena Museum of Art, where he held DuChamp's first museum retrospective in October 1963. Hopps had cultivated the Arensbergs, collectors of Cubist, Dadaist and Surrealist works and major patrons of Duchamp, who had a home in the Hollywood Hills. With the Ferus Gallery he provided a base for the mix of such commercial and collecting interests with the work and social networks of Beat Culture, particularly the circle around Wallace Berman. The Ferus Gallery provided Berman's public debut, in 1957, resulting in his conviction and fine for obscenity. In July 1962, it had given Warhol his first major exhibition. The artists around the Ferus Gallery, who were committed to a variety of modernist traditions and subcultures (ranging from Beat to hot rod, motorcycle and deer hunting), included John Altoon, Larry Bell, Billy Al Bengston, Robert Irwin, Ed Kienholz, [p. 27] Craig Kauffman, Allen Lynch, John Mason, Ed Moses, Ken Price, Ed Ruscha and Peter Voulkos. For those linked to the Beat movement, around Wallace Berman, an open, interracial anhd sexually libertarian culture was advocated. This was distinct from the community who saw themselves more self-consciously as professional artists and, therefore, as part of a "Ferus group." These arts were described by the poet David Meltzer, who knew both circles well, as "lumberjacks" because of their shirts and personas:
"They were much more the professional artists . . . Male display and male competition. They would be the contingency in the lumberjack shirts, and then you'd have the Berman contingency, the ethereal, exotic creatures . . .There was a great giving of work to each other in the [Berman] group. There was much more cross-pollination than in the lumberjack camps-they rubbed shoulders but they were into cars, talking paint-clean some brushes, get back to work."
Blum, too, recalls the effects of the macho artists obsessed by motorcycling and surfing. By mid-1965, Los Angeles artists from the Ferus Gallery singled out for promotion were Bell, Bengston and Irwin. They, along with Judd, Newman, Poons, and Stella, had been chosen by Hopps for the USIA exhibition at the VIII Bienal de Sao Paulo . . . Kienholz showed in both the Ferus and Dwan Galleries. Petlin recalls that, in conversation with Craig Kauffman, in spring 1965, it was decided to call a meeting of artists to discuss the war in Vietnam. The venue was to be the Dwan Gallery, which had opened in Westwood in 1960 with John Weber joining it in 1962. Although there were no way of predicting who would turn up, it was thought that the views of two of the various types of Los-Angeles-based artists, connected to the Ferus Gallery and with links to the Dwan Gallery network, would be a good indication: Ed Kienholz and Larry Bell. The former was regarded as a potential supporter because of the apparently politicised nature of his work. In 1963 (June-July), the Dwan Gallery included in its Kienholz exhibition The Illegal Operation (1962), on the subject of back-street abortion, and National Banjo on the Knee Week (1963), with ambiguous national references including the United States flag. In 1964 (September-October), the Dwan Gallery showed his Three Tableaux (The Birthday, While Visions of Sugar Plums Danced in their Heads, and Back Seat Dodge-'38, all 1964, with strong sexual and social signifiers. [p. 28] Kienholz was also known as a ferocious and strong-minded character-one of the Ferus group "Lumberjacks." Larry Bell, on the other hand, produced abstract scuptures that became associated with emphases on materials, shapes, and structure in early Minimalist and systems work. He was also regarded as a more "ethereal" personality whose career had developed rapidly in the previous year. Petlin phoned both to test the potential response to the call for a meeting of artists. Kienholz was adamantly negative and pro-war, mainly as a solidarity with blue-collar Marines; it was not until later in the 1960s with for example The Portable War Memorial and The Eleventh Hour Final (both 1968) that Kienholz's view of the war changed. Although this was something of a surprise to Petlin, as Walter Hopps recalls: "Kienholz . . . was a kind of libertarian anarchist: he wasn't in any sense leftwing, and he was totally sceptical of any political party. Irving Blum recalls Kienholz's works as having "an excessively moral edge and overtone" and his personality as 'a kind of fascist temperament influenced by his frontier and hunting background, leading him to have "a complete arsenal wherever he has lived. He's had rifles, shotguns, pistols, hand grenades, one thing or another." Kienholz has talked about his Republican background, his love for his country, and claimed that "I'm propbably apolitical because I think that politics stink."
He also recalls not talking about politics much in the late 1950s and early 1960s in Los Angeles. Larry Bell, on the other hand, was very positive and supportive of the proposals.
The meeting was called on 2 May with, according to the Los Angeles Free Press, seventy-five artists attending and an organizing "committee including Charles Mattux, Mike Steiner, Craig Kaufman, Larry Bell, Ervin Petlin and Dejon Dillon . . .
A second meeting was called for the following Wednesday at the Dwan Gallery . . . could barely contain the several hundred artists, art students and related persons who attended . . .
[p. 29] La Cienega Boulevard provided a particular street culture; in the late 1950s and early 1960s the area was a tenderloin district full of prostitutes, gay bars and the signifiers of a Los Angeles art boom with galleries for both tyro and experienced collectors and spectators. The art boom was an emergent phenomena that could be targeted. What if this high-culture presence could be taken away as a vivid protest? Could the denial of cultural pleasure draw attention to the realities of political and military behaviour?
" . . .
"We Dissent": "Stop Escalation"
In the same issue of the Los Angeles Free Press, the Artists' Protest Committee placed a double-page advertisement with 174 signatories [Footnote 63]
Footnote 63: p. 51-52 Los Angeles Free Press, 2:20 (14 May 1965), 6-7 The signatories were: Peter Alexander; John Altoon; Sam Amato; Hans Ashauer; Ralph F. Ashauer; Ruth Baker; John Barbour; Molly Barnes; Walt Batterton; Larry Bell; Steven Belzman; Patricia Berger; Charles Brittin; Barbara Brittin; John Bryson; Robert Borsodi; Dr. Robert Bone; Sherry Brody; Edward Brooks; William H. Brown; Dorothy Ann Brown; Gilbert Brown; Barcaly Brown; Wm. Brun; Susan Brustman; F.W. Butts; John Caruthers; James Childs; Robert Cheuy; James Church; Jean Clark; Bernard Cohen; W. Pachaic Cooper; Ron Cooper; John Coplans; Emily W. Cordova; Raymond J. Cordova; Tamara Cotiauox; Barbie Cowling; Claire Deland; Annette del Zoppo; Jackson Dillard; Kenneth H. Dillon; Dejon Dillon; Morton Dimondstein; Paul Donin; Peter Douvos; Gilbert Draper; Draper; Harold Dreyfus; Maurice Ehrlich; Boyd Elder; Elliot Elgart; Herb Elsky; Evan Engber; Mark Freedman; Lola Feiner; Lilly R. Fenichel; Bruria Finkel*; Max Finkelstein; Richard Frazier; Judy Friedman; Gene Frumkin; Frank O. Gehry; Milton Gershgoren; M. Gochenouer; Marvin Grayson; Edith & Lou Gross; Carol Hampton; Norman Hartwig; Clythe Hatch; Claude W. Hayward; Maryanne Heiman; Arleen Hendler; Maxwell Hendler; Ro Hineser; Robin Hirsch; Marvin Hughes; Charles A. Jaeger; Wallace Johnson; Pat Ishii; Ben Kalka; Craig Kauffman; Paul R. Kaufman; Debbie Kazor; Eugene Kazor; Julie Keeler; Carol Kerlan; Stanley Kiesel; Jane Klein; Peter L. Kleinart; Eugene Klix; Richard Klix; Burt Kopelow; William Kosting; Art Kunkin; Ronald Kriss; Mary Kutila; Sandra Laemmle; Gladys Leider; Philip Leider; Arthur Levin; Joann Lopez; Lorraine Lubner; Marvin Lyons; John Maguire; Peter & Kat Marin; Lawrence Martin; Charles Mattox; Sharon McLaglen; Parke Meek*; Arnold Mesches; Deena Metzger; C. McCome; Selma Moskowitz; Lee Mullican*; Coliene Murphy*; Tanya Neufeld; Anais Nin; James Olngy; Felicia Pappernow; Mallory Pearce*; Edward M. Pearl; Sarah Petlin; Irving Petlin*; Anna Purcell; Lavonne Regehr; Robert Reghr; Myrna Riseman; Paul Jay Robbins; Trina Robbins; Sandra Roch; Allen Ruppersberg; Claire Russell; Marion Sampler; Anne Saville; Ruth Saturensky; Joyce Schiller; Thomas Sevel; Al Shean; Charlotte Sherman; Stanley Miles Shugarman; Bernice Silberman; Herbert Silberman; Jerry Simon; Rick Soltz; Joan Spevack; Mike Steiner; Deborah Sussman; Michael Zebulon Swartz; Galya Tarmu*; Richard Taylor; Edmund Teske; Matthew Thomas*; Carol Tolin; David Tolin; Frederick A. Usher; Al Villalotu; Cliff Vaughhs; John Watson; Carole Westberg; Martial Westberg; John Weber; Richard Weston; Doug Wheeler; Nanci Wheeler; Sylvia Wolf; Ken Wynsma; Mary Yeomans; Colin Young; Curtis Zahn; Sid Zaro; Jill Zimmer.
[p. 29] . . . We hereby commit ourselves to a foreign policy which will remove our troops from Vietnam and Dominican Republic now. Six "Realities" [assumptions] follow . . . 1) that the constant use of force cannot be used to stop the process of transition and turmoil throughout the world nations; 2) that we support the right of all people to express popular demand by revolution, as in the origins of the United States republic; 3) that the actions of the United States were destroying the United Nations and Organizations of American States, created to settle disputes and to keep the peace; 4) that the responsibilities for world peace must be discharged through the United Nations; 5) that the struggle for freedom "at home" is weakened and made hypocritical by irresponsible tactics abroad; 6) that military intervention is "evil, immoral and illegal . . . a betrayal of our own ideals" . . .
[p. 31] . . . Cultural managers in Lo Angeles were fancying that the city was capable of challenging New York as a polar alternative art centre on the West Coast. The Monday night art walk with the galleries lit and open to the hundreds and thousands of visitors was an important signifier of the city's cultural aspirations, which were signalled also by the recent opening of the new Los Angeles County Museum of Art, with the then largest gallery floor space in the country . . . This weekend, like earlier ones, also saw othe major protests in Los Angeles, mostly "Teach-Ins" and "Teachouts" at colleges and universities.
As the Los Angeles Free Press reported, the threefold event was "an unprecedented protest of the Los Angeles community with "more than a thousand artists and their friends participating. . . . People and the Free Press were surprised by the lack of main stream media coverage. Felix Landau and David Stuart Galleries, among others, [p. 32] covered art work in white paper, and "Stop Escalation" symbols added.] . . . Not all artists supported the event. For example, Billy Al Bengston was opposed to the Ferus Gallery participating, saying that with the war going on all the people in Orange County had money to buy his art. Orange County was a conservative area with people making money from military-related industries in southern California.
" . . .
[p. 33] The phrase "ladder of escalation" had a particular currency at the time. Although "escalation," using the metaphor of the escalator, had been used in the late 1950s to mean the "controlled exchange of ever larger weapons in war, leading to the destruction of civilization," the "ladder of escalation" was first coined in 1962 by Herman Kahn in Thinking the Unthinkable. He used it to convey a process of conflict between two powers:
"Each side may take certain positive steps either to bring the other to the bargaining table or to apply pressure during the negotiations. Sometimes these pressures tend to decrease with time or with a temporary solution to the problem at hand. At other times there is a tendency for each side to counter the other pressure with a somewhat stronger one of its own. This increasing pressure step by step is called "escalation."
William Kauffmann, writing in The McNamara Strategy (1964), indicates that the phrase had become current usage in the strategic studies community, including at the RAND Corporation. The highly influential military strategist Bernard Brodie had already analyzed the concept of "escalation" in a RAND Working Paper (September 1962), and went on to publish an important work, in 1966, with "escalation" in its title, as Herman Kahn (also a RAND analyst) had done in 1965. Kahn proposed a careful graduation from rung one to rung 44, which had a "powerful impact upon decision-makers and strategists alike." The artist's use of the "ladder of escalation," in their three-fold demonstration, was a specific reference to the dangers of a change from a limited to a general war and one in which nuclear capabilities might eventually figure. They also saw that the phrase was being used to [p. 34] mean stategic escalation of war fighting by a technologically superior nation on a technologically inferior country . . .
RAND: Artist Protest
This action was continued in 1965 in parallel to the statements by the Artists' Protest Committee in The New York Times with a demonstration at the RAND Corporation. The latter was one site of concern because of the contractual links between the State Department and the RAND Corporation and the latter's involvement in American foreign policy in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. In an article in 1963 Saul Friedman described the RAND Corporation as
"The paramilitary academy of United States strategic thinking . . . [which] does the basic thinking behind the weapons systems, the procurement policies, and the global strategy of the United States. Unlike any strategic research organization anywhere else in the world, the RAND Corporation has become internationally famous and controversial, for bring a new mode of thought to problems of cold war strategy."
Its origins, though, are rooted in the military and ideological concerns of the early Cold War. In late 1945, without Congressional approval and without taking bids, General H.H. "Hap." Arnold, Commanding General of the Army Air Forces, signed a contract for the creation of an experimental institution linking the Douglas Aircraft Company and the Air Force. Known as "Project RAND," it was set up as a department of Douglas under an initial $10 million contract with the Air Force, which was one of the most unusual and long-term contracts between the government and a private institution. It allowed RAND extensive freedom to initiate research and eventually to extend its clients to various elements of the Pentagon, the Atomic Energy Commission and NASA. In 1948 RAND became a Corporation, independent of Douglas, with the help of various sources of funding including a grant of $1 million from the nascent Ford Foundation.
Two of the RAND Corporation's major objectives were to advance techniques of intercontinental warfare and to combat Communism, particularly in an atmosphere of Cold War partisanship. Although it was a research haven, all scholars within it had to relate their work to military applications and warfare with the knowledge that views and publications [p. 35] could end up in the White House or Pentagon. RAND's output was huge-thousands of books and reports as well as memoranda, briefings and communications, with about half of its annual work labeled secret. It maintained enormous security and secrecy, with all of its analysts required to have top-secret security clearances. Such an institution drew differing views. To those who viewed it positively RAND enabled the United States military to maintain a sophisticated, efficient and technological superpower status. To sceptics, mostly in the early 1960s on the political left, RAND was regarded as "a vital brain centre for the military-industrial complex, inspiring costly new weapons, mapping out counter-insurgency plans and computing kill ratios and "magadeaths." RAND strategists invented the words "overkill" and "megadeaths" in their massive reliance on computer predictions in assessing ICBM (Intercontinental Continental Ballistic Missile) programmes.
Through sources in the RAND Corporation, information on its theoretical proposals for action in Vietnam were made known. For example : proposals for a programme of systematic uprooting of communities and of hamlet relocation; the diversion of rivers to dry up deltas; the drying up of the sea to locate fish in strategically enclosed and guarded villages; stategies of ethnic or population cleansing; the use of concentration camps. The overall RAND-derived policy was to make the country a "freefire" zone to unleash the full effects of American technological warfare on the "Vietcong." It was decided to picket the RAND Corporation to publicise its secret "think tank" proposals. Its base, built in 1953 with assistance from the Ford Foundation, was a two storey, two-million dollar, palm-studded building overlooking the beach at the end of Santa Monica Pier. A five-story building, providing more office space, was added in 1961. By 1962, RAND was earning about $3.5 million a year and its two subsidiaries Analytic Services (ANSER) and Systems Development Corporation (SDC) earning $1 million and $20 million a year respectively. All were non-profit organizations reinvesting resources for research and equipment. Staff in 1963 amounted to 1100, of whom about 730 were researchers, mostly post-doctoral, recruited through a scouting system from the science and university centers of the West Coast and Northeast. Members of the Corporation had established a community of intellectuals in the city, especially in Santa Monica, many of them young art collectors and patrons of galleries, with a public reputation for progressive research.
However, Petlin had an inside source who discussed with him less publicized activities and deliberations. He had met Roman Kolkowucz a member of the RAND Social Science Department and specialist in Soviet politics, at a party. Kolkowicz, from a family shattered by the Holocaust, was a refugee from Eastern Europe and from totalitarian Communism, which he abhorred. However, when hired by RAND, he wa greatly concerned not only by the escalation of the war in southeast Asia but [p. 36] also with the parallels between the Holocaust and the threat of genocide in Vietnam. He was prepared to share information with Petlin so as to aid the broader protest against United States foreign policy. They met secretly and never in the same place twice. Knowing this, Petlin and other members of the picket were aware of the necessity for their own secrecy and organized the event without the use of telephone contact. By this time the Artists' Protest Committee believed that it had been infiltrated or at least listened to. Postcards wre handed to trusted people with details of time and instructions for each group from different areas of the city to meet at John Weber's apartment before going on to surround the RAND building. Weber was an important member of the initial group and his apartment, near Santa Monica Pier, was a well-known place for artists to gather. However, at a meeting, Weber's door was smashed down by two Los Angeles policemen from the "Red" squad: one hit Petlin in the chest and another photographed him and others illegally. Despite the picket's care, the police and the RAND Corporation knew they were coming. This knowledge may have been the reason for the Artists' Protest Committee to announce its demonstration, which appeared in the the Los Angeles Free Press on the day before the protest, on 26 June, when leaflets entitled "Why the RAND Corporation?" were handed out. . . .
The artists and their friends were to meet by the well-known Merry-Go-Round on the Santa Monica Pier, followed by an orderly march to the RAND Corporation with the possibility of a rally in front of the building, with Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate, as one of the speakers, if a loudspeaker permit could be obtained. Alarmed and upset by the event, representatives of the Corporation invited a delegation from the picket into the building and offered them a future discussion, a closed debate. Petlin knew the possible strategy of the Corporation, which had been made aware of the potential protest, as had the Pentagon, by police activity. His source at RAND had given him a copy of a TWX (Scrambling machine) communiction from Robert McNamara, then Secretary of State for Defense, saying "engage them," by all means find out what these people think. Get some sense of their criticism of the War, milk [p. 37] them for information. We need to plan ahead to nullify public opposition and to handle the public relations aspects. Knowing of this communication, Petlin was confident that the RAND Corporation would respond positively to a proposal for an open meeting . . . The spring and summer of 1965 was a time when the Johnson administration was very nervous about and sensitive to protests, wishing both to pacify, by sending out speakers, to university campuses and the like, and to secure more information about the opposition. RAND was also heavily involved in Southeast Asia and provided a large number of the elite group brought in by McNamara to run the Pentagon.[Footnote 87]
[p. 54, Footnote 87] One of them was Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, who was a national security expert and "hawk" at RAND from 1959 to 1964. He was one of the RAND members drafted by McNamara to work in the Department of Defense where he worked until 1967 when he returned to RAND and worked on McNamara's History of U.S. Decision Making Process on Vietnam Policy (later known as the "Pentagon Papers."] The total number of RAND analysts working on this forty-seven-volume report was second only to the number of government employees in the team of thirty-five military and civilian analysts. Ellsberg's views on the war began to change after his visits to Vietnam [1964-1967] and before leaving to join MIT in 1970 he smuggled out a copy of the Pentagon Papers [of the four legitimate copies of the report permitted outside of government, two were given to RAND for reference). On of his supporters was Anthony J. Russo, another ex-RAND analyst.
[p. 37] With the "McNamara revolution" in the Pentagon, which began at the start of the Kennedy administration, it was claimed by J.R. Goldstein (RAND Vice-president and with the corporation since its inception.) that "McNamara's techniques were RAND's techniques," Their extensive influence was felt in the Bureau of Budget, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and elsewhere. RAND employees were also used on commissions, committees, task forces and planning groups.: "The 1966 RAND Annual Report, for example, stated that some ninety staff members were holding down 269 advisory posts, with groups serving such entities as the White House, Department of Defense, Commerce Department, and the National Science Foundation. In February 1967 Sol Stern published an incisive essay in Ramparts on the "McNamara revolution," which he argued was born of changes in the technology and economics of modern warfare and by America's emergence as a self-appointed policeman for the world. The revolution was brought about by those professional defense intellectuals"-many of them RAND alumni . . . a revolution carried through by the most unlikely of revolutionaries: a business executive named Robert Strange McNamara. Stern, quoting the new president of RAND Corporation, demonstrates that McNamara's "hired intellectuals"-regarded the war in Vietnam "as merely a "problem" instead of recognizing it as a crisis in American ideology and values-a crisis which demands that some questions be asked because decent values demand them, and that some solutions be rejected not because they are invalid but because they are wrong."
For McNamara, the roles of intellectuals within, and as outside critics of, government were historically in transformation. RAND provided him with a great resource of "defense intellectuals", one of the new intellectual elites in the United States. Many ideas and philosophies, for example, about nuclear weapons and their use, theories of deterrence and limited [p. 38] war were generated by civilians, by intellectuals, working independently from the military. Crucially, too, as Kolkowicz argues, these new intellectual elites became "managers of the defense establishment, of vast budgetary resources, and of scientific-military establishments. Theodore H. White, the eminent historian of the American establishment, wroted in Life magazine, in 1967, that there is a "new power system in American life, a new priesthood unique to this country and this time, of American action-intellectuals. In the past decade, this brotherhood of scholars has become the most provocative and propelling influence on all American government and politics, and their ideas are shaping our defense and guiding our foreign policy. He went on the single out RAND as one of the "best investments" made by the United States government and "if Rand did not exist today there would be a most compelling reason for creating it."
. . .
It is, therefore, not surprising that a request for a closed and a public dialogue was agreed by the RAND representatives. Petlin knew that this would be so. [Peltlin recalls those in the closed debate were Larry Bell, Harold Dreyfus, a businessman, Robert Duncan, the poet, Leon Golub, Lloyd Hamrol, and Craig Kauffman, Max Kozloff, the critic, Michael McClure, the playwirght, Annette Michelson, critic and soon to be contributing editor on Artforum, Irving Petlin; Golub's recollection adds Rolf Nelson, gallery owner, Jim Henderson, photographer.] Footnote 99.
[p. 54, Footnote 99] The RAND Staff invited were: Bernard Brodie, Social Science Department, history and strategy; Edward C. De Land, Computer Science Department, mathematical models of blood chemistry; functions of organs, etc.; Alton Frye, Social Science Department, politics of space, etc.; Brownlee Haydon, Assistant to the President, Communications; Amron Katz, Electronics Department, physicist, reconnaissance specialist, attendee of Pugwash Conferences, etc.; Roman Kolkowicz, Social Science Department, specialist in Soviet politics; Leon Lipson, Social Science Department (Consultant), Professor of Law, Yale University; Guy Pauder, Social Science Department, a specialist in southeast Asia; Robert Wolfson, Logistics Department, economist. Brodie, in particular, was "a pioneer of modern strategic studies in the nuclear era, who work has powerfully influenced generations of strategists and decision makers. [Introduction, in Kolkowicz (ed.), The Logic of Nuclear Terror, p. 3] Brodie was an intellectual, a civilian theorist, whose work on strategic deterrence policy from 1946 onward led to the evolution of the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD).
. . . [p. 39] Security was such that when artists visited the bathroom a guard accompanied them to, and stood by, the urinals.
The Dialogue on Vietnam was held at 8:00 pm on August 3 at the Warner Playhouse [capacity 400] on North La Cienega Boulevard. Twice the capacity showed up. . . The Free Press reporter, Albert Mall, doubted whether any had won, since do one had sought compromise positions on southeast Asia. Dr. Judd Marmor, UCLA, Psychiatry, moderated. The artists' side, Dreyfus, Golub, Kozloff and Petlin thought they had won both the closed and public debate. Bernard Brodie, Guy Pauker and [Charlie] Dollard represented RAND, opening with "we are not here to defend government policy," and proceeded to do just that. The artists were accused of failing to condemn acts of violence on both sides of the conflict, B52 bombs and Third World guerilla warfare.
[p. 40] " . . . on the substance of what the United States was doing in Vietnam, including the methods employed and their origins an the RAND's defensee of the military, there was no difference between the two debates. The artists attributed United States methods and their origins to historical Fascist methods of state terror, with technology being used as41 a new potential method of genocide either through indifference and inattention or through intent and focus: technological made either possible. The RAND representatives argued that different technologies and methods were essentially down to the nature of the difference between the two societies in the conflict: each fought with what was best for itself. For the artists the relative effects a B-52 bombers and Third-World guerrilla warfare was ignored by RAND's ideological defense of the United States in Vietnam. A basic moral gulf that separated the two sides was the artists' disbelief that these intelligent RAND people could feel so positive about continuing such an unequal policy against a peasant society. A basic historical and political gulf centered on the role of the United Staes as an imperialist power since the late 1940s, particularly in southeast Asia. Clearly Petlin's source in RAND shows that there were dissenters in the Corporation. The dissenters, and those at other think-tanks, expressed their views publicly only in 1969 when the Artists' Protest Committee's predictions about escalation, including the presence of 540,000 American service personnel in Vietnam had been proved. The Hudson Institute, headed by former RAND theorist Herman Kahn, put forward radical reductions in United Sttates presence . . .Then in a letter to the New York Times by six members of the RAND Corporation, including Ellsberg, urging the United States to make a unilateral withdrawal of its troops from Vietnam within a year . . .
[p. 41] You can call it cultural diplomancy
In the midst of the Artists' Protest Committee's activities wtih RAND, a report appeared in the New York Times drawing attention to the role of art and culture within the official apparatus of the state . . . An Andy Warhol and works by Joseph Albers, Karl Zerbe, Larry Rivers and Alexander Calder adorned the walls of the American Embassy in Madrid. Works were lent through the Art in Embassies programme, begun in 1963 . . . An Andy Warhol and works by Joseph Albers, Karl Zerbe, Larry Rivers and Alexander Calder adorned the walls of the American Embassy in Madrid.
At the same time, the United States Information Agency (USIA) was, through the State Department, involved in its own "cultural diplomacy" by planning the promotion. of the United States at the VIII Bienal de Sao Paulo, Brazil, held from 2 September to 28 November. In the 1960s these events involved big money. Walter Hopps, chosen to organize the [p. 42] the exhibition in 1965, remembers that it was normally around half a million dollars; at least $400,000 for Sao Paulo. Hopps recalls the highly charged political context of these exhibitions and places them in the light of the complexities of his own left-of-center commitments, his history of avant-gardist activity at the Ferus Gallery and his involvement with a high school classmate of Barbara Rose, Helen Goldberg, who he describes as having an "extreme political radicalism." According to Hopps, under Johnson's administration huge amounts of money were put at the disposal of the USIA to allow participation in the various biennials, including Venice in even years and Sao Paulo in odd years. Requests for participation in exhibitions would go to a cultural affairs officer at the State Department-"usually they were political hacks"-and then to the USIA, "a major propaganda arm, and it's an interesting cover for all sorts of CIA operatives . . . I have friends in the agency now and have had to deal with some. I've even used them for art errands." Whoever was chosen to be a State Department Commissioner to run an exhibition would be subject to the USIA's rules of the game, but a huge budget would be provided. Prior to this period, the State Department usually passed on such a job to MoMA or the Whitney.
[p. 42 ] Hopps recalls that Lois Bingham was "the op inside the Washington USIA branch and there were USIS [United States Information Service] field offices all over, usually connected with embassies and consulates and just full of CIA ops under cultural affairs cover with lots of money to help you get anything done." Significantly, Hopps states that there was no heavy interference with respect to the type of art, just an attitude by officials that "Now is the time to have big, high visibility, American presence." The way that Commissioners were chosen demonstrates how a particular intellectual patronage was perpetuated. The Commissioners from Sao Paulo in 1963, Martin Friedman, nominated around three people for the Venice job in 1964 and the USIA chose one of them. In 1964, Alan Solomon was selected to select contemporary art in New York, which was "an extraordinary show of Rauschenberg, Johns, Dine, Oldenburg on the one hand; and Morris Louis, Ken Noland, Frank Stella . . . John Chamberland, on the other. A blockbuster for Venice in '64." Hopps had helped out at Venice and was one of those nominated by Solomon. On his being chosen for Sao Paulo in 1965 ops came out from USIA, [to] creep around the [Pasadana] museum, chat with trustees, and so on . . . They made a real production of it." Hopps worked on the exhibition in late 1964 and early 1965 at a time when he was back into the drug culture he had been into in the 1950s, in Los Angeles. He recalls himself and his old friend Dennis Hopper being stoned out of their minds at one event and describes the contradictory aspects of "almost everything going on then."
[p. 43]' "I have an absolutely extreme-leftist girlfriend, and I'm working with colleagues at the IPS [Institute for Policy Studies). On the other hand I'm working on this big show in Brazil where every third person is a CIA undercover . . . the whole operation is a cover for all kinds of miserable agency activity and operations. So it was a terrible strain . . . I was first in Brazil just after the tanks had rolled and the generals put out . . . their socialist president . . . I ended up on three kinds of shit lists for signing anti-Franco petitions."
[p. 43] . . . Cultural image was clearly important for the foreign policy of the state, whether in embassies or in exhibitions. The State Department was tolerant of artists' radical statements as long as they could be contextualized by well-packaged "American" art. Hopps suggests that this art did not have to be connected to the "new American painting," though in the Sao Paulo in 1965 this a major thread. Paintings by Newman, an "Abstract Expressionist," were placed at the center of an exhibiton of largely abstract works that provided the anodyne symbols of American individualism: work by Bell, Bengston and Irwin from Los Angeles, along with Judd, Poons and Stella from the East Coast. Concurrently with the USIA's activities and the Art in Embassies programme abroad, the Johnson administration was concerned with its public image at home. The legacy of the 1950s and the dissuasive processes of the CIA abroad and the agencies of the state at home were at the forefront of the thoughts of the Artists' Protest Committee. Even with a Democratic administration, which had a relatively progressive domestic reform program, dissenters risked a great deal. To ask Linu Pauling to address the RAND picket was to recall not only the strength of the previous protest but also an awareness of the potential for reprisals against those who dissented from the war. . . .
[p. 43] Watts as Signifier
By the end of 1965, the Artists' Protest Committee realised that none of the newspaper advertisements, debates, or demonstrations had made its voice heard as effectively as had been hoped. How could it take the weakness . . . [p. 44] of its position-the lack of institutional support and the minimal media coverage of their previous activities -and turn it into a strength? How could it do this urgently to represent their abhorrence at the activities of their leaders. In looking back to the Dialogue on Vietnam with the RAND Corporation on 3 August, artists from Los Angeles and southern California had much to be troubled about. Not only had the war in Vietnam greatly escalated but an internal war characterised by oppression, poverty and racism re-erupted. A week after the Dialogue on Vietnam, the Watts area of Los Angeles saw one of the largest uprisings that the nation had ever known. This 2.5-square mile core of south-central Los Angeles housed around half a million African-Americans, a number swelled by migrants from the rural south, in an urban slum. On 11 August 11 1965, the residents of Watts believed that a routine arrest was marked by the police's use of unnecessary force and the beating of a woman. This event lit a fuse. Years of police oppression and forceful repression coupled with poverty and an indadequate urban infrastructure exploed into six days of riots, looting and burning; Thirty-four people died, 1032 were wounded, 3952 were arrested and an estimated $40 million worth of damage was caused. The lead on the front page of the Los Angeles Free Presss on 20 August, "The Negroes have voted," represented a widely held view in the commnity that normal democratic processes, were ineffective for a large section of Los Angeles. For them, oppression, deprivation and the white power structure were root causes of the event. The editor of the Los Angeles Free Press, Art Kunkin, observed that anyone who criticized the city administration or Chief of Police Parker for their role in the disturbances "is called a Communist or a supporter of criminal elements. It is actually very dangerous in Los Angeles today to enter reasonable objections to the sensationalistic reporting and ridiculous charges of conspiracies. Protestors against the US war in Vietnam had similiar experiences in the legacy of McCarthyite condemnation of opposition as Communist, or criminal or conspiratorial or all three.
[p. 44] . . . Ramparts . . . In the editorial of the June [1965] and 1966, the effects of "white power" in the denial of justice and voting rights to "millions of Negro Americans" for centuries is placed in the context of Selma, Alabama, and subsequent protest. But if justice was now on the agenda at home, the editorial asked how this could be reconciled with "the injustice for another people" with the United States' obstruction of elections in Vietnam . . .
[p. 45] "American neo-colonialist ambitions" could not entertain the possibility that free elections would lead . . . to election of the communists . . . the conscience of "white America," which was aroused by the Civil Rights movement is relevant to the Vietnamese struggle." Two months later, in Watts, Los Angeles the conscience of "white America" was given another reminder of domestic neo-colonialism.
"One symbol of the Watts area remained untouched. The three Watts Towers (99, 97 and 55 feet high) had been built over a thirty-three-year period by Sabatino (called Simon or Sam) Rodia, an Italian immigrant who earned his living as a tilesetter, as a butcher, as a laborouer. When they were completed in 1954, Rodia left the property to a neighbour nerver to return. Made out of broken plates and bottles, shells and tiles on an armature of iron and concrete the towers were variously valued as, for example, folk art; symbols of independence, outside institutional confines; a public site with an assemblage of everyday, ephemeral recycled materials. Rodia died on 16 July 1965, a month before the riots. Within Watts, his Towers reminded inhabitants of the financial and social place of immigrant labour within the urban city geared to technology, entertainment and the car. The postwar Californian state master-plan, designed to build multi-million-dollar freeways within four miles of every metropolitan house, served only white car commuters and those able to afford airline ticketes in the enormous expansion of the use of the city's airports. The once efficient interurban transit service of the early 1900s was replaced by car dependency and creation of an underclass reliant on an overburdened and inadequate bus system. Arguably, Rodia's Towers were symbols of a Watts underclass. However, this did not prevent the works being appropriated differently within the "art world." For many of the artists of the region, the Towers signified the culturally resistant elements of assemblage, utilized as much in the subcultures of hotrod [p. 46] racing as in the Dadaist collages and tableaux of those in the centre and the periphery of Beat Culture. In many respects the emphases on collage and assemblage were characteristic of differences between West Coast artists and those in the East. However, the Towers also became appropriated within the Museum high culture. In 1961, the Museum of Modern Art in New York held an exhibition, The Art of Assemblage, including the work of Bruce Conner, Ed Kienholz and Robert Rauschenberg, which served to legitimate "assemblage" as an art form within the canon. The catalogue by William Seitz included a positive discussion of the Watts Towers, including a statement by Rodia.
In the October 1965 issue of Artforum there was a reference to Watts. As the journal was not published in July and August, October wa the first month wthat any practical inclusion of a response to the events of August could have been made (the copy deadline for September's issue would have passed.) But the referenece did not include any mention of the causes, events or implications of the uprising. Instead, Artforum published a four-page article, mostly photographs of the Watts Towers with a two-column text consisting of a letter by Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Director of Museum Collections at MoMA, to Kate Steinitz, the archivist of the Watts Towers Committee. Rodia's death, in July, prompted Artforum to use Barr's letter written after his five-day visit to Los Angeles in July 1965, accompanied by Dorothy Miller, also from MoMA: "Homage to Sam: Alfred H. Barr Jr. Describes His Responses to the Towers at Watts." Barr recalls being driven "through a flat, forlorn and endless cityscape,"the area called Watts, and draws a parallel between Rodia "and another idealistic immigrant Bartolomeo Vanzetti . . . Their agony was their triumph the one in death, the other in his Towers, his marvellous evidence of things unseen." This romanticized view of both Rodia and Vanzetti (executed in Boston in 1927, amidst protests that he and Nico Sacco had been tried more for their ethnic identity and anarchist beliefs than for any civil crime) is complemented by his reference to Steinitz's discussion of Rodia in The Art of Assemblage. In his use of the Barr letter and photographs of Rodia's Towers, Artforum demostrated that its representation of "Watts" and its recent history, would not be within the realm of socio-cultural politics but be firmly indexed to a particular perspective on art and museum aesthetics.
. . . . [p. 47]
For many members of the Artists' Protest Committee the escalation of both aggressive foreign policy, in Vietnam, and heightened Civil Rights tension, in the aftermath of Watts, were in contrast to the public face of the mainstream art world, even in its radical form at Artforum. In retrospect, there were palpable contradictions evidenced, for example, by Hopps talking about his experiences in mid-1965, by Leider on the one hand writing about demonstrations in Frontier while on the other editing issues of Artforum that focus on the Watts Towers with no mention of the "Watts riot." It was in what is called the "alternative" or "underground" press, such as the Los Angeles Free Press, or in the activities of artists' situationist politics to use Petlin's phrase, that signs of the contradictions erupt. With its letter of announcement, in November 1965, the Artists' Protest Committee attempted to repoliticize the meaning of the Tower, to signify a politics in the midst of a specific Los Angeles experience. Their Tower evokling not only Rodia but also Tatlin, was produced in the practical and contingent space between utopia and dissent. By the time Hardy Hanson produced a poster, A Call From the Artists of Los Angeles, the Artists' Protest Committe had decided that this space had a particular rhetoric: "Here we speak in a manner native to us as artists."
Chapter: There and Here: Then and Now
[p. 98] Ft. Note 22 Petlin's Typed and Uncorrected and Incomplete List of Tower contributors: Gilles Ailland; S. Aitkin; Tom Allen; Karl Appel; Vincent Arcillisi; Sam Armoto; Francois Arnal; Sardo Aronson; Arroyo; Elsie Asher; Helen Avalon; Walter Baker; Rudolf Baranik; Will Barnett; Gianfranco Barychello; Walter Bayer; Edward Beberman (Biberman?); Belzono; Karl Benjamin; Jean Benoit; Anthony Berlant; Berman; Annette Bird; Biras; Patrick Blackwell; Nell Blaine; Camille Blaire; Margit Bleek; Bleckman; Allen Boutin; Bob Bolles; Ecdward Botts; James Brooks; Milton Bowin; Charles Brittin; I. Bromfromel; James Brooks; M. Brown; Ray Brown; Vladamire Bubalo; Jacques Buss; Freeman Butts; Jim Cajori; Camacho; Victor Candell; Martin Canin; J. Cannon; Cardenas; Casar; Vija Celmins; Roberto Chavez; Chemay; Sam Clayburge; Sam Clutie; G. Cohen; Jan Colbern; Jess Collins; John Coleman; E. Contino; William Copley; Rollin Crampton; Cremonini; Emilio Cruz; Cueco; Ron Curtis; Allen d' Archangelo;Robert Dash; Jay De Feo; Storm De Hirsch; Marie de Noailles; Jean DeWasne; Richard Diebenkorn; Dejon Dillon; Dominich Di Meo; Dimetrakas; Dimitrienko; Morton Dimondstein; Robert Donley; Frazer Dougherty; Peter Dovvos; Elliot Elgard; Ilse Erythrope; Mariano Erythrope; Tom Etherton; Mariano Eunese; D. Evans; Philip Evergood; Bella Feldman; Joaquin Ferrer; Telly Filmus; Kieeth Finch; Perle Fine; Max Finkelstein; Sidro Flomelbalch; Rachel Formica; Antonio Frasconi; Sally Francis; Elias Freedonsohn; Mary Fuller; Jose Garcia; Al Gebhardt; Anne Gelber; Chaves Gerardo; M. Gergoren; Ruth Gikow; Loreno Gilchriest; James Gill; Hugo Gilbert; George Gillson; Julio Girona; Leon Golden; P. Golpinopoulas; Leon Golub; Sydney Goodman; Gordan; Stephen Goswell; Marvin Grayson; Balcomb Greene; Cynthia Greene; S. Greene; Lowell Greenough; Philip Guston; Walter Gutman; Gwathney; Carol Hairer; Theodore Halkin; Bert Hanson; Hardy Hanson; Marvin Hardin; Kay Harris; David Hatch; Jean Helion; Eva Hesse; Hielihia; Joseph Hirsh; Peter Holbrook; Etheleym Honig; Budd Hopkins; Anna Hornisher; W. Hubbard; H. Hui; J. Hulpberg; Richard Hunt; Angelo Ippolito;Nora Jaffee; Ward Jakoson; W. Joffey; Ives Johnson; Richard Juke; Adja Junkers;Katherine Kadell; Kadish; W. Kahn; Howard Kantowitz; S. Kaplan; Theodore Kapsalio; Kassay; Herbert Katzman; Jane Kaufman; Raymond King; Chaim Kippelman; William Kishing; Jane Kline; Richard Klix; Dorothy Koppelman; Angela Kosta; Sue Koster; Max Kozloff; Jane Kraicke; Harry Kramer; N. Krof; Gabriel Laderman; Roy Lawless; Michael Lawrence; June Leap; Jack Levin; Kim Levin; Phillipe Leroy; Si Lewen; Ray Lichtenstein; Diane Liebowitz; Linda Lindaberg; John Little; Lee Lublin; Lorraine Lubner David Lunk; Marvin Lyons; J.S. Lysowski; Anthony Maggi; D. Main; Ivan Majdrakoff; Mardin Marcus; Joseph Martiner; Matta; Herbert Matter; Mercedes Matter; Charles Mattox; Henry Maurice; Robert McChesney; Eine McKnight; Joan McNee; Margaret Melliken; James Mellon; Mercado; R. Merz; Arnold Mesches; Robert Moesle; Monoru; Robert Motherwell; Joe Mugnaimie; Lowell Nesbitt; Tanya Neufeld; Louise Nevelson; Douglas Ohlson; Gerald Oster; Abilio Padron; Dominick Palestino; Freda Paris; Harold Paris; Keith Parker; Ray Parker; Michael Parre; Peter Passirntino; L. Pazzi; Judith Pearl; Philip Pearlstein; R. Pedreguera; Gina Pellon; Christina Pessillo; Irving Petlin; Bernard Pfriem; Lil Picard; Jorry Pinsler; Piqueras; Robert Pittenger; Sam Pollack; Harold Presonello; Joe Raffaele; Ramon; Bernard Rancillac; Sonya Rapoport; Ad Reinhardt; Philip Reisman; Marsha Rich; Alice Richenheiumerk; Falio Rieti; Jay Rivkin; Niki Robert; Robert Rockless; Richard Roff; Pauline Rooney; Sylvia Rosenbein; Irwin Rosenhouse; Jim Rosenquist; Charlotte Rosofasky; Russ Rosofasky; Seymour Rosofasky; Richard Rubens; Joop Sanders; Betye Saar; Arthur Secunda; Jason Seley; Serisawa; Meyer Schapiro; Roy Schnackenberg; Ellen Schwartz; C. Sherman; S. Sherman; Ellen Simon; A.H. Sonberg; Josh Sonenberg; Rick Sotz; Moses Soyer; Rudolf Soyer; George Spaventa; Spero; Nora Speyer; Joe Stefanelli; Hedda Sterne; May Stevens; Michelle Stewart; Sugarman; George Sugarman; Shol Swartz; Alina Szapocznikow; Yasse Tabuchi; Acne Talachnik; Susanna Tauger; Constantine Tavoularis; Nerve Telemaque; David Teschout; Paul Thek; Mike Todd; Anthony Toney; Wm. Tunberg; Lois Tytell; Reva Urban Helene Valentin; S. Van Veer; Estaban Vicente, Richard Vincent; Don Vlack; Jan Voss; Charles Walters; Larry Watlin; Alicia Weal; Ellen Weber; Tom Wesselmann; Charles White; Robert Wiegand; James Wines; Witherspoon; Sara Wolf; Alice Yamii; H. Yeargans; Jack Zajac; Sid Zaro; Allen Zaslove.
[p. 99] Ft Note 23 The New York Times Artists' Protest Tower in Los Angeles [These were NY Artists: Out of some 400 contributions to the Tower]: Susie Aitkin; Elise Asher; Helen Daphnis Avlon; Tony Balzano; Rudolf Baranik; Walter Barker; Will Barnet; Baruchello; Margit Beck; Milton Berwin; Edward Betts; Nelll Blaine; R.O. Blechman; Bob Bolles; Paul Brach; L. Bronfman; James Brooks; Charles Cajori; Victor Candel; Martin Canin; Herman Cherry; George Cohen; Cply; Emilio Cruz; Robert Corless; Ron Curtis; Allan D'Archangelco; Robert Dash; Storm De Hirsch; Elaine de Kooning; Fraser Dougherty; Georfe Dworzan; Isle Erythropel; D. Evans; Phillip Evergood; Tully Filmus; Perle Fine; Rachel Formica; Elias Friedenshohn; Sideo Fromboluti; Ruth Filkow; Lorenzo Gilchrist; George Gillson; Julio Girona; Leon Golub; Sydney Goodman; Ron Gorchov; Balcomb Greene; Cynthia Greene; Stephen Greene; Philip Guston; Walter Gutman; Robert Gwathney; Carol Haerer; Kay Harris; Burt Hasen; John Heliker; Eva Hesse; Joseph Hirsch; Budd Hopkins; Helene Hui; John Hultberg; Robert Huot; Angelo Ippolito; Donald Judd; Ward Jackson; Nora Jaffee; William Jeffrey; Eddie Johnson; Reuban Kadish; Wolf Kahn; Howard Kanowitz; Bernard Kassoy; Herbert Katzman; Jane Kaufman; Chaim Kopplelman; Dorothy Koppelman; Max Kozloff; Harry Kramer; Gabriel Laderman; Jacob Landau; David Lawless; June Leaf; Kim Levin; Jack Levine; Si Lewen; Roy Lichtenstein; Linda Linderberg; John Little; David Lund; Manuel Manga; Ernest Marciano; Marcia Marcus; Emily Mason; Herbert Matter; Mercedes Matter; Eline McKnight; James Mellon; Jack Mercado; Margart Milliken; Robert Motherwell; Bob Natkin; Alice Neel; Lowell Nesbitt; Louise Nevelson; Doug Ohlson; Gerald Oster; Ray Parker; Peter Passantino; Philip Pearlstein; R. Pedreguera; Christina Pesirillo; Harold Pesirillo; Bernard Pfrief; Lil Picard; Bob Pittinger; Lucio Pozzi; Andre Racz; Joe Raffaele; Ad Reinhardt; P{hillip Reisman; Pauline Roony; Irwin Rosenhouse; James Rosenquist; Richard Rubens; Joop Sanders; Jason Seeley; Meyer Schapiro; Sarai Sherman; Burt Silverman; Ellen Simonl; Jack Sonenberg; Phoebe Sonenberg; Moses Soyer; Raphael Soyer; George Spanventa; Nancy Spero; Nora Speyer; Joe Stefanelli; Hedda Sterne; May Stevens; Sahl Swarz; Michelle Stuart; George Sugarman; Suzanne Tanger; Paul Thek; Mike Todd; Anthony Toney; Louis Tytell; Reva Urban; Helene Valentin; Stuyvesant Van Veen; Esteban Vicente; Richard Vincent; Don Vlack; Ellen Weber; Tom Wesselman; Robert Wiegarnd; John Willenbacher; James [p. 100] Wines; Sara Wolf; Alice Yamin; Heartwell Yeargens; Adja Yunkers
[p. 100] Ft.note 24: Arnold Mesches, Chair, Fund-raising Committee, Artist's Tower Los Angeles, Partial List, Invited Financial Contributors, UC Department, Special Collections, Collection 50, A Collection of Underground, Alternative and Extremist Literature, Box 36, Folder Artist's Tower Los Angeles] Karel Appel, Cesar, Elaine de Kooning, Philip Evergood, Herert Ferber, Sam Francis, Judy Gerowitz [Judy Chicago], Leon Golub, Lloyd Hamrol, Jean Hekion, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Motherwell, Lee Mullican, Claes Oldenburg, Ad Reinhardt, Larry Rivers, Jim Rosenquist, Mark Rothko, George Segel, Frank Stella, George Sugarman, Jack Zajac,
Bibliography:
Jim Heimann Sins of the City: The Real Los Angeles Noir, Chronicle Books: San Francisco, CA, 1999, 159pp.
" . . .
" . . . Prostitution, gambling, and drugs provided a livelihood for thugs as well as cops. Both factions served as enforcers. . . .
"Almost from the start, Los Angeles had a reputation as a hell-hole. In the mid-1800s it was filled with murderers, vigilantes, thieves, and prostitutes. Streets were rutted paths where mongrel dogs roamed and dead animals were dumped. L.A.'s first notoriety in national headlines was spurred by the massacre of Chinese immigrants near the old city plaza on the Calle de los Negros. . . . Morrow Mayo's book Los Angeles . . . "a dreadful thoroughfare forty feet wide, running one whole block, filled entirely with saloons, gambling-houses, dance halls and cribs. It was crowded night and day with people of many races, male and female, all rushing and crowding along from one joint to another . . . Nigger Alley was a madhouse, filled with a mass of drunken, crazy Indians of all ages, fighting, dancing, killing each other off with knives and clubs, and falling paralyzed drunk in the street. Every weekend three or four were murdered."
"In 1871, this crowd went on a killing spree after a Chinese resident, shooting wildly in the street, accidently hit "a white man." Within minutes denizens of the area swarmed the Chinese enclave, lynching, ransacking, stabbing, and beating "the heathens." Eventually nineteen victims were left dead. The Grand Jury indicted one hundred and fifty men, with six sent to jail. Several days later the six were released on a technicality. . . ." p. 5
" . . .
"In the 1920s prohibition increased the problems. . .
"Gangs and crime bosses knew a good thing when they sniffed it and came crawling across the country the to set up shop. Bootleggers such as Tony Conero*, Dominic DiCiolla, and Albert Marco, controlled the business. Vice lords Guy McAfee, Nola Hahn, Jack Dragna and Bob Gans commandeered their turf, laying claim to numbers rackets, prostitution, gambling, and slot machines. They were local hoodlums . . .
" . . . The kingpin of police corruption was chief of police Ed "Two Gun" Davis. He and his city hall cronies made sure L.A. remained safe for bribes and graft, which escalated in the twenties and thirties to a wholesale spoils system. Their regime culminated in 1938 with the car bombing of private investigator Harry Raymond, an ex-LAPD detective who was in the process of exposing the corruption. The bombers were traced back to the LAPD's Intelligence Squad, and the ensuing public outrage ousted Mayor Frank Shaw while Chief Davis, along with twenty-three of his fellow officers, was forced into resigning.
"One of L.A.'s important contributions to the regular rackets lay three miles off its coast. The first gambling ship arrived in 1928 to entertain and unload the pockets of residents and rubes. The various barges that anchored off the coast for the next decade were a lucrative trust for the local syndicate. Flaunting legal jurisdiction, they operated openly until the late thirties, when a series of raids finally grounded them. Ships such as the Rex, the Montfalcone, the Tango, and the Monte Carlo were memorbly drafted onto the pages of Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep.
" . . . After the war, . . .
" . . . beach front communities including Long Beach, Venice, and Santa Monica hosted "games of chance" that were just another form of illegal lottery. Bridge, keno, tango, and bingo parlors were everywhere. The thinly veiled gambling dens fed small-time bunco artists for a short period after the war but were slowly eliminated by the mid-fifties." p. 10
" . . .
p. 32 [Caption: "Exhibitionism and body worship. Hedonist pursuits practiced in earnest at Muscle Beach in neaby Santa Monica, a suburb favored as a location by fiction writers." Jim Heinmann Collection photograph of a bodybuilder, flexing in front of the platform's equipment locker which has been inscribed Phil B. and Bill R., with Frosty Cup, Leo's Place, Burgers behind the platform.]
p. 83 ["The Olympic Auditorium in downtown Los Angeles was a grittier venue for sportive pleasures and replaced the Vernon Arena in 1925 with seating for 15,000. It, too, had a reputation for harboring a criminal element in its cigar-soaked halls."]
p. 89[Caption: "Dance marathons masqueraded as entertainment for a fad-hungry Los Angeles whose population gobbled up the sport. The Depression-era craze served as the background for They Shoot Horses Don't They?, a novel set in a seaside ballroom similar to the one advertised in this brochure." Pictured "Official Program All American Championship Non-Stop Dance Marathon No Sleep No Rest How Long Can They Last? 25c Any Time 25c Free Parking"Duke Hall " Master of Ceremonies Now Being Staged at La Monica Ball Room Santa Monica-on the Pier Phone S.M. 22606 Broadcasting Three Times Daily KTM Tune In 760 Kilocycles 8:00-8:05 a.m. 1:45-2 p.m. 10:00-10:30 p.m." And the photo is labeled "Couple No. 4 Charlie Loeb and Billie Jones Marathon Dance Presented by Duke Hall Santa Monica, CA in white ink; in black ink "1,167 hrs" and "To my friend Jack Niedorf? best of luck Your Pal, Charlie Loeb"]
p. 94["L.A.'s most famous evangelist, Aimee Semple McPherson* shrewdly combined theatrics and admonitions to her needy followers to "Give, give, give, until it hurts! Praise the Lord." Captivating thousands of followers with elaborate shows staged at her Foursquare Church in Echo Park, picutred above, she also broadcast her sermons to thousands more who sent in contributions, keeping Sister Aimee well endowed despite several scandal-tinged episodes. If L.A. was a city poisoned by sin, Sister Aimee was its antidote."]
pp. 114, 115 ["Bugsy Siegel, c. 1940; "Bugsy sprawled on the couch of Virginia Hill's rented Beverly Manse, June 20, 1947. Returning from a trout dinner in Ocean Park, Siegel and his bodyguard retired to the couch to catch the early editions of the newspapers . . .Speculators figured too much money was mishandled in the construction of the Vegas Flamingo and East Coast bosses wanted him eliminated."]
pp. 130, 131["Top. The Rex, Santa Monica Bay's most renowed gambling ship, awaits the Sheriff's Department men approaching the barge for a raid, ca., 1938. Bottom. The operation. Gaming tables and slot machines, ready for the evening's "squirrels" to arrive. Cops and Robbers. Another raid on the Rex with owner and operator, Tony Cornero* (on the left) showing off his playing equipment to Johnny Klein, D.A. investigator; George Contreas, Captain of the Sheriff's Department; and Charles Dice*, Chief of the Santa Monica Police, May, 1936."]
"The Royal Crown seemed to ride as steady as a pier on its four hawsers. Its landing stage was lit up like a theater marquee. Then all this faded into remoteness and another, older smaller boat began to sneak out into the night toward us. It was not much to look at. A converted sea-going freighter with scummed and rusted plates, the superstructure cut down to the boatdeck level, and above that two stumpy masts just high enough for a radio antenna. There was a light on the Montecito also, and music floated across the wet dark sea."
-Raymond Chandler, Farewell, My Lovely.
pp. 132, 133 ["Top Aboard the Rex, cops detain patrons while the ship gets the once over, ca. 1939. Bottom. Slot machines from the gambling ship Lux are given the heave-ho onto a waiting barge for the trip back to the mainland, February 1941. Opposite. The Rex under assault. During the "Battle of Santa Monica Bay," Tony Cornero's "associates" keep the Sheriff's Department at bay by hosing their speedboats, August 1939."]
pp. 146, 147 ["The Venice Pier pulled in crowds of revelers looking for inexpensive excitement. Writers of the noir found it the perfect locale for fog-shrouded intrigue, ca. 1940. Top: another front for penny-ante crime, mechanical horse races were shut down when investigators exposed their fixed wirings. Bottom."Bridgo parlors with exotic names such as Carneo, Vogue, Shamrock, and Canasto were a variation of the same old con game that kept popping up in beachfront amusement zones. The "sucker games" were wiped out in Venice in a clampdown of the racket in 1949."]
Noir Writers
" . . . Few of the writers were natives. Authors such as Raymond Chandler, Nathanael West, John Fante, Evelyn Waugh, and Aldous Huxley drew inspiration from local news accounts. The tales were there for the asking. The local rags and newpapers published the city's dirtiest launrdry. . . . early writers of the noir culled these stories, adding the chaos and cynicism of the corrupt city, . . .
"Later, a new crop of writers such as John Gregory Dunne, Walter Mosley, and James Ellroy . . . From the dreams and nightmares of the real city they crafted fact into fiction, and the photographs substantiated their writings." p. 156
The Photographers:
"Early in the twentieth century, the city was filled with daily tabloids: the Los Angeles Times, the Daily News, the Mirror, the Examiner, the Herald, the Hollywood Citizen. Photographers such as Delmar Watson represented the typical news photographer. George Watson, Delmar's uncle, worked initially for the Times later becoming manager of Pacific and Atlantic Photos, a forerunner of United Press International Wire Photos. One of the town's most aggressive news photographers, George Watson shot the region's most acclaimed personalities, events, disasters, and crimes. Delmar Watson described the Los Angeles shooting scene as one that was free form and filled with spontaneous decision making. Bruce Henstell* in his book Sunshine and Wealth quotes Daily News editor Matt Weinstock describing his newspaper's staff of ten photographers as uncontrollable: they "could terrorize everyone with flash powder which after the explosion filled the vicinity with throat-searing smoke."
"After the war and into the fifties, stringers for East Coast scandal sheets such as Confidential shot viciously unflattering celeb shots, or anything else that looked like a story. Forerunners of today's paparazzi they were an unorganized group who were an unwelcome intrusion around town.
"A few commercial photographers, in the course of their assignments, caught another side of the Southland: the posed and precise Los Angeles. The Mott, Dick Whitington, Merge, and other studios produced some of the most enduring images of L.A. A studied treatment was given to tourist attractions, architecture, movie premieres, grocery store openings, flossed-up streets, and hand shaking politicians. Together with the freewheeling newspaper photographers, they captured the genuine Los Angeles noir." p.158
Bibliography: [partial]
p. 159
Historic Santa Monica City Hall (A guide to), Santa Monica and the Gettty Trust, 2004
"A renovation of the Council Chamber in 1999-2000 added technical upgrades and design changes to enhance meeting participation, but did not disturb the existing, historic finishes of the chamber. Of particular design interest is the crenulated wood detail added to the front of the Council dais which mimics a similar detail found at the exterior roofline of City Hall."
L.A. As Subject: Cultural Inheritance: A Directory of Less-Visible Archives and Collections in the Los Angeles Region, The Getty Research Institute fot the History of Art and the Humanities: Los Angeles, CA, 1999, 324 pp.
Ocean Park Library, 1999, Photograph by Rick Laudati
Joslyn Park, 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati
Ocean Park Blvd. at the Fourth St. Overpass, Welkin 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati
2405 Third St., 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati
Sixth and Ocean Park Blvd, 1999 Photo by Rick Laudati
Harold Osmer & Phil Harms Real Road Racing: The Santa Monica Road Races, Harold L. Osmer Publishing: Chatsworth, CA 1999, 1910s
Preface:
"Automobiles,
auto racing, race drivers, and a host of other obvious things changed
dramatically in the ten years between 1909 and 1919."
Prelude to Santa Monica:
"A map of the
Venice California 3.23 mile-long Race Course indicates the
canvas-fence enclosed course operated from 1910 to 1916, with
grandstands at the corners of Electric Av. and Rose Av. and Electric
and Rialto Aves, near the Tokio Station. There were scoreboards
across from the Grandstands. There were gates at Elena Av., Broadway
Av., Rialto Av., Oakwood Av. and Victoria Av., with an auto bridge at
Lincoln and Victoria to admit patrons onto the parking areas of the
infield.
" . .
.
"Santa
Monica . . . image was established in 1893 when Southern California's
ultimate resort opened as the Arcadia Hotel. Located at the corner of
today's Ocean Av. and Pico Blvd., residential and commercial activity
were then redirected into the city's southern section. . . ."
"Santa
Monica grew as a summer resort for heat-weary Los Angeles residents.
Bath houses and resort hotels joined the casinos and pier-mounted
amusements in serving a dynamic clientele. Santa Monica's 2000
residents hosted daily crowds numbering many thousands more. Pacific
Electric rail cars provided transportation to and from Los Angeles in
about 25 mintues."
" . .
.
" . . .
Santa Monica maintained a reputation for relaxing fun, top quality
resorts, and a superior climate. In the early 1900s, residents began
to recognize and exploit their image. City efforts were then focused
on resort hotels and the burgeoning tourist trade. Major roads were
dragged and oiled on a regular basis, sidewalks were constructed, and
public walkways were built along the beach
"Speedway
Drive, which still exists today, was among the first paved roads west
of Los Angeles. Real estate developers created this long, smooth,
straight stretch of pavement in order to entice automobile owners
westward from Los Angeles. After a bumpy ride over dirt roads to the
beach, drivers could open their throttles and drive at speed with
relative impunity, hence the name. Developers naturally hoped that
families of well-to-do automobile owners would move west, or perhaps
build a summer cottage along the shore."
"Santa Monica's racecourse followed
existing roads on the north side of the city limits through an 8.4
mile D-shaped circuit. The start-finish line was located near Montana
Av., on Ocean Av., which ran parallel to a cliff above the beach. . .
."
"Racers
traveled south along Ocean Av. roughly three-quarters of a mile,
slightly downgrade to Nevada Av., (later Wilshire). A tight 90 degree
left hander brought them to a wide open three-mile straightaway. . .
. a sweeping left hand turn at the Old Soldiers Home. This led to San
Vincente Blvd."
"An
abundance of vacant lots allowed for ample parking and spectating. A
bridge at Fourth St. allowed cars and fans to safely cross the
course. . ." pp. 8 & 9
"By 1910,
Santa Monica boasted 7,847 permanent residents."
Noted in
the Los Angeles Times, 1909, the threat of a "spite fence"
whereas one party threatened to block the view of another in
retaliation for the threat of having his view blocked.
The 1909
Santa Monica race was held July 10, 1909 to coincide with a week-long
Elks Club convention."
The 1910 Santa Monica race was held on
Thanksgiving.
"The
parade of motor cars started from Los Angeles, 14 miles from the
scene of the race, early Wednesday evening. There was no let-up and
throughout the night the chugging of motors continued. By midnight
all the desirable parking space was occupied and 10,000 people were
within a mile of the grandstand. . . .
"After dancing on an immense platform for several hours the fog and the chill morning air proved too much for the awaiting spectators and they proceeded to demolish said dance hall and burn it up in several gigantic bonfires. The special police who dared to interfere were threatened with a ducking in the ocean and retired. The beach resorts for miles along the coast were crowded throughout the night and those who could not find better accommodations slept in the sand and under the many palm trees." -Motor Age
"The hegira
to the city which followed the finish of the race was tremendous.
Automobiles lined up for miles and plodded their way slowly to Los
Angeles. There was no use of endeavoring top speed. There were too
many machines. From the summit of one hill between Santa Monica and
the city the long line of automobiles, leading away from the scene of
the great race, resembled a mammoth serpent crawling over the roads.
. . ." Los Angeles Times
"The
1911 Santa Monica race was held on October 14."
""Bert
[Dingley] has been readied for the race today by Roger
Cornell, who is probably the greatest physical conditioner in
America, and who has prepared most of the big fighters for their
supreme contests."
""Every
day Dingley has been rubbed down with an electric vibrator to steady
his nerves, and his hands and arms have had special treatment.
Between races, Cornell will take care of him much after the manner
that boxers are restored in their corners between rounds."" Los
Angeles Times
"The
1912 Santa Monica race was scheduled for May 4 in conjunction with
the Los Angeles Shriners Convention. Barney Oldfield would make his
initial appearance in the Santa Monica Race having been suspended by
the AAA for his outlaw match race with boxer Jack Johnson."
Advertisement: 1913
W.L. Heinickle Lincoln Ford Fordson Cars, Trucks, Tractors, "We sell
everywhere" Phone 61007 Main and Navy
Sts. Venice, California
"The 1913
Santa Monica race on August 9."
"1914 had
two major races in Santa Monica scheduled, Vanderbilt Cup, February
21 and February 23, the Grand Prize.
" . . . By
noon Tuesday, rain was falling in sheets. The showers continued . . .
for three days. . . . persistant rain . . . turned the dirt roads
between Los Angeles and Santa Monica into ribbons of mud. . . ."
"Pacific
Electric tracks also sustained heavy damage. . . ."
"The races
were delayed until February 26 and 28."
"Santa
Monica was a clear favorite for both races in 1915 but Santa Monica's
Mayor Dudley tried to outmaneuver the Western Auto Association
[which may be why Venice was given the 1915 Grand Prix Event]
and the events were held in San Francisco with the Panama-Pacific
Exposition."
"In 1916
Santa Monica scheduled two races for Thanksgiving."
"In 1919
the last Santa Monica race was run."
Santa Monica Planning Division Santa Monica Landmarks Tour, 2003.
Third Street Historic District Survey, 1999, 1983, 1982
#1 203 Mills Street (2500 block of the Third Street District). Photographed 1983 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/3594/IMG0083.JPG
237 Mills, 1980s?
#2 241 Marine Street (3000 block of Third Street District). Photographed 1983 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/3594/IMG0080.JPG
#3 Turn-of-the
century cottage, 238 Hill Street (Third Street Historic Neighborhood
District). Photographed 1983 for the City of Santa Monica Historic
Resources Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/3594/IMG0049.JPG
#4 Edwina and William Hostetter House, 237 Beach Street (original location 2547 Second Street, Third Street Neighborhood District) Queen Anne cottage built ca. 1885. Photographed 1992 by Leslie Heumann and Assoc. for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/3594/IMG0027.JPG
#5 2653
Fourth Street (401 Hill Street). Third Street Historic District.
Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0053.JPG
#6 Craftsman bungalow, 2635 Fourth Street (Third Street Historic District) Built 1914 for George E. Tupper. Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0052.JPG
#7 Turn-of-the-century
cottage, 2931 Third Street (Third Street Historic District).
Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0039.JPG
#8 Mission Revival apartment complex, 2906 Third Street built 1912 for Mrs. Rosa M. Cameron. Photographed 1992 by Leslie Heumann & Assoc. for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0038.JPG
#9 2902 Third Street/ 248-250 Ashland (Third Street Historic District). Photographed 1982-83 for City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0037.JPG
#10 2825 Third Street (Third Street Historic District) Colonial Revival cottage built 1903. Photographed 1992 by Leslie Heumann & Assoc. for City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0036.JPG
#11 2814 Third Street (Third Street Historic District). Craftsman style residence built 1909. Photographed in 1992 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory by Leslie Heumann & Associates http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0035.JPG
#12 Turn-of-the-century
cottage, 2634 Third Street (Third Street Historic District).
Photographed 1982-83 for the Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0034.JPG
#13 Turn-of-the-century
cottage, 2628 Third Street (Third Street Historic District) Built
1906 by H.L. Smith. Photographed
1982-83 for Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0033.JPG
#14 Turn-of-the-century cottage, 2623 Third
Street (Third Street Historic District) Photographed 1982-83 for City
of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0032.JPG
#15 Turn-of-the-century
cottage, 2623 Third Street (Third Street Historic District)
Photographed 1982-83 for City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0031.JPG
#16 "Swiss chalet" Craftsman bungalow, 2619 Third Street (Third Street Historic District) built 1901 by N. Lawrence for John Argyle. Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0030.JPG
#17 1905
cottage, 2617 Third Street (Third Street Historic District) built
1905 for John Blanchard*.
Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory.
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0029.JPG
#18 2616-2618
Third Street (Third Street District) Craftsman residence built 1909
by A. Wilmot*. Photographed 1982-83
for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0028.JPG
#19 2614 Second Street (Third Street District) Craftsman bungalow built 1912 by W.J. Edinger for J.L. Van Every. Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0027.JPG
#20 2602
Third Street (Third Street District). Craftsman bungalow built 1909
by A.B. Matteson. Photographed
1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0026.JPG
#21 2553
Third Street (Third Street Historic District) Craftsman residence
built 1905. Photographed 1982-83 for
the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0025.JPG
#22 2551 Third Street (Third Street Historic District) built 1906. Photographed 1982-83 for Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0024.JPG
#23 2547 Third Street. Cottage built 1904 (Third Street Historic District) Photographed 1982-83 for City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0023.JPG
#24 2507 Third Street. Craftsman residence (Third Street Historic District) built by John Waite for A.M. Waite in 1911. Photographed in 1992 by Leslie Heumann & Associates for City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0022.JPG
#25 Belvedere Apartments, 2328 Third Street (Third Street Historic District) built 1921. Photographed 1992 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory by Leslie Heumann & Associates http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0021.JPG
#26 2118
Third Street (Third Street Historic District) Spanish Revival style
built by S.A. Logan 1923.
Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0020.JPG
#27 2017
Third Street (Third Street Historic District). Craftsman bungalow
built 1912. Photographed1982-83 for
the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0018.JPG
#28 2015
Third Street (Third Street Historic District).
Craftsman bungalow built 1912. Photographed 1982-83 for the City of
Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory
http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0017.JPG
#29 Spanish Colonial Revival Style, 1916-1928 Third Street (Third Street Historic District) built 1923. Photographed 1992 by Leslie Heumann & Assoc. for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0016.JPG
#30 2501 Second Street (Third Street Historic District) n.d. Photographed 1982-83 for the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources http://www.smpl.org/archive/0246/IMG0014.JPG
Sample Local Historic Preservation Ordinance City of Santa Monica
1City of Santa Monica ( Article 9 Planning and Zoning Chapter 9.36 Landmarks and Historic Districts 9.36.010 Title. This Chapter shall be known as the Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica. (Prior code § 9600; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.020 Purpose. It is hereby declared as a
matter of public policy that the purpose of this Chapter is to
promote the public health, safety and general
welfare by establishing such procedures and providing such
regulations as are deemed necessary to:
a. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the
City's cultural, social, economic, political
and architectural history.
b. Safeguard the City's historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as
embodied and reflected in such improvements
and areas.
c. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the
pasr
d. Protect and enhance the City's aesthetic and historic attractions
to residents, tourists, visitors and others,
thereby serving as a stimulus and support to business and
industry.
e. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic
Districts for the education, pleasure and
welfare of the people of this City. (Prior code § 9601; added by
Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76;
amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.030 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following words
and phrases shall have the meaning set forth
herein, unless it is apparent from the context that a different
meaning is intended: Certificate of
Appropriateness: A certificate issued by the Landmarks Commission
approving such plans,specifications, statements of work, and any
other information which is reasonably required by the
Landmarks Commission to make a decision on any
proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal,
relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Structure
of Merit, Landmark or Landmark Parcel,
or to a building or structure within a Historic District.
Contributing Building or Structure: A building
or structure which has been identified by the Landmarks
Commission as one which contributes to the
designation of an area as a Historic District. Exterior
Features: The architectural style, design, general arrangement,
components and natural features or all
of the outer surfaces of an improvement, including, but not limited
to, the kind, color and texture of the
building material, the type and style of all windows, doors, lights,
signs, walls, fences and other fixtures
appurtenant to such improvement, and the natural form and appearance
of, but not by way of limitation, any
grade, rock, body of water, stream, tree, plant, shrub, road, path,
walkway, plaza, fountain, sculpture or
other form of natural or artificial landscaping. Historic
District: Any geographic area or noncontiguous grouping of
thematically related properties which the
City Council has designated as and determined to be appropriate for
historical preservation pursuant to the
provisions of this Chapter. Improvement:
Any building, structure, place, site, work of art, landscape feature,
plantlife, life-form, scenic condition
or other object constituting a physical betterment of real property,
or any part of such betterment.
Landmark: Any improvement which has been
designated as and determined to be appropriate for
historical preservation by the Landmarks
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, pursuant to
the provisions of this Chapter.
Landmark Parcel: Any portion of real property,
the location and boundaries as defined and described by
the Landmarks Commission, upon which a Landmark
is situated, which is determined by the Landmarks
Commission as requiring control and regulation to preserve, maintain,
protect or safeguard the
Landmark.
Structure Of Merit: Any improvement which has been designated as and determined to be appropriate for official recognition by the Landmarks Commission pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. (Prior code § 9602; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.040 Landmarks Commission. A Landmarks Commission is hereby established which shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council, all of whom shall be residents of the City over eighteen years of age. Of the seven members, at least one shall be a registered architect, at least one shall be a person with demonstrated interest and knowledge, to the highest extent practicable, of local history, at least one shall have a graduate degree in architectural history or have demonstrated interest, knowledge and practical or professional experience to the highest extent practicable of architectural history and at least one shall be a California real estate licensee. The Director of Planning, or his or her designated representative, shall act as the Secretary of the Commission and shall maintain a record of all resolutions, proceedings, and actions of the Commission. (Prior code § 9603; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.050 Vacancies. In the event of a vacancy occurring during the term of a member of the Landmarks Commission, the City Council shall make an interim appointment to fill the unexpired term of such member, and where such member is required to have special qualifications pursuant to Section 9.36.040,such vacancy shall be filled by interim appointment with a person possessing such qualifications. (Prior code § 9604; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.060 Powers. In addition to any other powers set forth in this Chapter, the Landmarks Commission shall have the power to:
a. Designate Structures of Merit, Landmarks and Landmark Parcels, and to make any preliminary or supplemental designations, determinations or decisions, as additions thereto, in order to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter.
b. Conduct studies and evaluations of applications requesting the designation of a Historic District, make determinations and recommendations as such appropriateness for consideration of such applications, and make any preliminary or supplemental designations, determinations or decisions, as additions thereto, in order to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter.
c. Regulate and control the alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Structure of Merit, a Landmark or Landmark Parcel, or of or to a building or structure within a Historic District, and make any preliminary or supplemental designations,determinations, decisions, as additions thereto, in order to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter.
d. Adopt, promulgate, amend, and rescind, from time to time, such rules and regulations as it may deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter.
e. Maintain a current listing and description of designated Structures of Merit, Landmarks and Historic Districts.
f. Provide for a suitable sign, plaque or other marker, at public or private expense, on or near a Landmark or Historic District, indicating that the Landmark or Historic District has been so designated. The sign, plaque or other marker shall contain information and data deemed appropriate by the Commission, and the placement of such shall be mandatory in the case of a Landmark held open to the public use, and shall be at the discretion of the owner of the Landmark in the case of a Landmark not held open to the public use.
g. Participate in the environmental review procedures called for under this Chapter or under the California Environmental Quality Act by providing such comments as the Commission deems appropriate. (Prior code § 9605; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.070 Jurisdiction. Unless a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Landmarks Commission, or by the City Council upon appeal, or unless an express exemption as provided for in this Chapter specifically applies, any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Structure of Merit, Landmark or Landmark Parcel, or of or to a building or structure within a Historic District is prohibited, and no permit authorizing any such alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition shall be granted by any Department of the City. (Prior code § 9606; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
Section 9.36.080 Structure of Merit criteria. For the purposes of this Chapter, an improvement may be designated a Structure of Merit if the Landmarks Commission determines that it merits official recognition because it has one of the following characteristics:
a. The structure has been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory.
b. The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria:
1. The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.2. The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
3. The structure contributes to a potential Historic District. (Prior code § 9606.1; added by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.090 Structure of Merit designation procedure. Structures of Merit shall be designated by the Landmarks Commission in accordance with the following procedure:
a. Any person may request the designation of an improvement as a Structure of Merit by properly filing with the Director of Planning an application for such designation on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Additionally, the Commission may file an application for the designation of a Structure of Merit on its own motion. Within thirty days of filing a Structure of Merit designation application, the property owner and tenants of the subject property shall be notified of the application filing.
b. Upon proper filing of an application for designation of an improvement as a structure of merit, removal or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a proposed Structure of Merit is prohibited, and no permit issued by any City Department, Board or Commission including, but not limited to, a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map, or tentative parcel map permit, a development review permit, any Zoning Administrator permit, architectural review, rent control permit, or building permit, authorizing any such removal or demolition shall be granted while any action on the application is pending.
c. The Director of Planning shall conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and shall make a recommendation to the Commission as to whether the structure merits such designation. A public hearing to determine whether the structure merits such designation shall be scheduled before the Landmarks Commission within ninety days of filing of an application.
d. Not more than twenty days and not less than ten days prior to the date scheduled for a public hearing, notice of the date, time, place, and purpose thereof shall be given by at least one publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation, and shall be mailed to the applicant, owner of the improvement, and to all owners and occupants of all real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the lot or lots on which a proposed Structure of Merit is situated, using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown on the records of the City Clerk. The failure to send notice by mail to any such real property owner where the address of such owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. The Commission may also give such other notice as it may deem desirable and practicable.
e. No later than ninety days from the filing of an application, the Commission shall approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the application for the designation of a Structure of Merit. If the Commission fails to take action on the application for the designation of a Structure of Merit at the conclusion of the public hearing, the application for such designation shall be deemed disapproved, and it shall be the duty of the Director of Planning to certify such disapproval.
f. The decision of the Commission shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon to reach the decision, and such decision shall be filed with the Director of Planning.
g. Upon the rendering of a decision to designate a Structure of Merit, the owner of the designated Structure of Merit shall be given written notification of such designation by the Commission, using for this purpose the name and address of such owner as is shown in the records of the City Clerk.
h. Subject to other provisions of this Section 9.36.090 and 9.36.180 of this Chapter, a decision of the Commission to designate a Structure of Merit shall be in full force and i. The Commission shall have the power, after a public hearing, to amend, modify, or rescind any decision to designate a Structure of Merit and to make any preliminary or supplemental designations, determinations or decisions, as additions thereto.
j. The Commission shall determine the instances in which cases scheduled for public hearing may be continued or take under advisement. In such instances, no new notice need be given of the further hearing date, provided such date is announced at the scheduled public hearing.
k. Whenever an application for the designation of a Structure of Merit has been disapproved or deemed disapproved by the Commission, no application which contains the same or substantially the same information as the one which has been disapproved shall be resubmitted to or reconsidered by the Commission or City Council within a period of five years from the effective date of the final action upon such prior application. However, if significant new information is available, the City Council, upon recommendation from the Landmarks Commission, may waive the time limit by resolution and permit a new application to be filed. In addition, an application by the owner of the improvement proposed for Structure of Merit designation may be resubmitted or reconsidered notwithstanding said five year time period. (Prior code § 9606.2; added by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.100 Landmark or Historic District designation criteria.
a. For purposes of this Chapter, the Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure, improvement, natural feature or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.
4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.
6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
b. For the purposes of this Chapter, a geographic area or a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties may be designated a Historic District if the City Council finds that such area meets one of the following criteria:
1. Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.36.100(a)(1) through (6).2. It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality.
3. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning.
4. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. (Prior code § 9607; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.110 Public spaces. For the purpose of this chapter, any interior space regularly open to the general public, including, but not limited to, a lobby area may be included in the landmark designation of a structure or structures if the Landmarks Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, finds that such public spaces meet one or more of the criteria listed under Section 9.36.100. (Prior code § 9607.1; added by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.120 Landmark designation procedure. Landmarks shall be designated by the Landmarks Commission in accordance with the following procedure:
a. Any person of the City may request the designation of an improvement as a Landmark by properly filing with the Director of Planning an application for such designation on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Additionally, the Commission may file an application for the designation of a Landmark on its own motion. Within thirty days of filing a landmark designation application, the property owner and tenants of the subject property shall be notified of the filing of such application.
b. The Director of Planning shall conduct an evaluation of the proposed designation and shall make a recommendation to the Commission as to whether the application is appropriate for formal consideration. A hearing to determine whether the structure merits formal consideration shall be scheduled within sixty days of filing of an application. If the Commission determines that the application merits consideration, but only if it so determines, it shall schedule a public hearing within forty-five days of such determination. Any determination of the Commission to schedule or not to schedule a public hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director of Planning.
c. Upon a determination by the Commission that the application merits formal consideration by the Commission and the scheduling of a public hearing thereto, any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a proposed Landmark or Landmark Parcel is prohibited, and no permit issued by any City Department, board or commission, including, but not limited to, a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map or tentative parcel map permit, a development review permit, any Zoning Administrator permit, Architectural Review Board approval, certificate of appropriateness permit, rent control permit, or building permit, authorizing any such alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition shall be granted while a public hearing or any appeal related thereto is pending.
d. Not more than twenty days and not less than ten days prior to the date scheduled for a public hearing, notice of the date, time, place and purpose thereof shall be given by at least one publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation, and shall be mailed to the applicant, owner of the improvement, and to all owners and residents of all real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the lot or lots on which a proposed Landmark is situated, using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown on the records of the City Clerk. The failure to send notice by mail to any such real property owner where the address of such owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. The Commission may also give such other notice as it may deem desirable and practicable.
e. At the conclusion of a public hearing, or any continuation thereof, but in no case more than forty-five days from the date set for the initial public hearing, the Commission shall approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the application for the designation of a Landmark, and define and describe an appropriate Landmark Parcel. If the Commission fails to take action on the application for the designation of a Landmark within the forty-five day time period, the application for such designation shall be deemed disapproved, and it shall be the duty of the Director of Planning to certify such disapproval.
f. The decision of the Commission shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon to reach the decision, and such decision shall be filed with the Director of Planning.
g. The Commission shall have the power, after a public hearing, whether at the time it renders such decision to designate a Landmark or at any time thereafter, to specify the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel which may be performed without the prior issuance of a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to this Chapter. The Commission shall also have the power, after a public hearing, to amend, modify or rescind any specification made pursuant to the provisions of this subsection.
h. Upon the rendering of such decision to designate a Landmark, the owner of the designated Landmark shall be given written notification of such designation by the Commission, using for this purpose the name and address of such owner as is shown in the records of the City Clerk.
i. Subject to other provisions of this Section 9.36.120 and Section 9.36.180 of this Chapter, a decision of the Commission to designate a Landmark shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the rendering of such decision by the Commission.
j. The Commission shall have the power, after a public hearing, to amend, modify or rescind any decision to designate a Landmark or Landmark Parcel and to make any preliminary or supplemental designations, determinations or decisions, as additions thereto.
k. The Commission shall determine the instances in which cases scheduled for public hearing may be continued or taken under advisement. In such instances, no new notice need be given of the further hearing date, provided such date is announced at the scheduled public hearing.
l. Whenever. an application for the designation of a Landmark has been disapproved or deemed disapproved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, no application which contains the same or substantially the same information as the one which has been disapproved shall be resubmitted to or reconsidered by the Commission or City Council within a period of five years from the effective date of the final action upon such prior application. However, if significant new information is available, the City Council, upon recommendation from the Landmarks Commission, may waive the time limit by resolution and permit a new application to be filed. In addition, an application of the owner of the subject improvement proposed for Landmark designation may be resubmitted or reconsidered notwithstanding said five year time period. (Prior code § 9608; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1083CCS, adopted 2/28/78; Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.130 Historic District designation procedure. Historic Districts shall be designated by the City Council in accordance with the following procedure:
a. Any person may request the designation of an area as a Historic District by properly filing with the Director of Planning an application for such designation on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Additionally, the Landmarks Commission may file an application for the designation of a Historic District on its own motion.
b. The Director of Planning shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the proposed designation and shall make a recommendation to the Commission as to the appropriateness and qualification of the application for consideration by the Commission within ninety days after the proper filing of the application.
c. A hearing to determine whether the application for such designation merits formal consideration shall be scheduled within ninety days after the preliminary evaluation is transmitted to the Commission. Notice of the hearing on the preliminary evaluation shall be mailed to the property owners and tenants of all properties located within the boundaries of the proposed district not more than twenty and not less than ten days prior to the date scheduled for such hearing. If the Commission fails to take action on the preliminary evaluation within the ninety day time period, the application for such designation shall be deemed disapproved and it shall be the duty of the Director of Planning to certify such disapproval.
d. If the Commission determines that the application merits formal consideration by the Commission, but only if it so determines, it shall schedule a public hearing to be held within forty-five days of such determination. Any determination of the Commission to schedule or not to schedule a public hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director of Planning.
e. Upon a determination by the Commission that the application merits formal consideration by the Commission and the scheduling of a public hearing thereto, any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a building or structure within a proposed Historic District is prohibited, and no permit issued by any City Department, board or commission including a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map or parcel map permit, a final tract map or parcel map permit, a development review permit, any Zoning Administrator permit, architectural review permit, rent control permit, or building permit authorizing any such alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition shall be granted while a public hearing or any appeal related thereto is pending.
f. Any person subject to Section 9.36.130(e) may apply to the Director of Planning, and to the Landmarks Commission, on appeal, for an exception. Exceptions may be granted for repairs or alterations which do not involve any detrimental change or modification to the exterior of the structure in question or for actions which are necessary to remedy emergency conditions determined to be dangerous to life, health or property.
g. Not more than twenty days and not less than ten days prior to the date scheduled for such public hearing, notice of the date, time, place and purpose thereof shall be given by at least one publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation, and shall be mailed to the applicant, owners of all real property within the proposed Historic District and to the owners and residents of all real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the Historic District, using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown on the records of the City Clerk. The failure to send notice by mail to any such real property owner where the address of such owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. The Commission may also give such other notice as it may deem desirable and practicable.
h. At the conclusion of a public hearing, or any continuation thereof, but in no case more than forty-five days from the date set for the initial public hearing, the Commission shall recommend to the City Council the approval, in whole or in part, or disapproval of the application for the designation of a Historic District, and shall forward such recommendation to the City Council stating in writing the findings of fact and reasons relied upon in reaching such a recommendation. If the Commission fails to take action on the application for the designation of a Historic District within the forty-five day time period, the application for such designation shall be deemed disapproved, and it shall be the duty of the Director of Planning to certify such disapproval.
i. Within forty-five days from the date the Landmarks Commission renders a recommendation on the Historic District application, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the City Council. The same notice requirements set forth in subsection (g) of this Section shall apply to the hearing before the City Council. At the conclusion of the public hearing, or any continuation thereof, but in no case more than forty-five days from the date set for the initial public hearing, the City Council shall by ordinance approve, in whole or in part, the application for the designation of the Historic District, or shall by motion disapprove the application in its entirety. If the City Council fails to take action on the application for the designation of a Historic District within the forty-five day time period, the application for such designation shall be deemed disapproved, and it shall be the duty of the City Clerk to certify such disapproval.
j. The decision of the City Council to approve the application for the designation of a Historic District, in whole or in part, by ordinance, or to disapprove the application in its entirety by motion, shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon to reach the decision, and such decision shall be filed with the City Clerk.
k. The City Council shall by ordinance have the power, after a public hearing, whether at the time it renders a decision to designate a Historic District or at any time thereafter, to specify the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition of or to a building or structure within a Historic District which may be performed without the prior issuance of a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to this Chapter. The City Council shall by ordinance also have the power after a public hearing to amend, modify or rescind any specification made pursuant to the provisions of this subsection.
l. Upon the rendering of such decision to designate a Historic District, the owners of all real property within the designated Historic District shall be given written notification of such designation by the City Council, using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown in the records of the City Clerk.
m. Subject to other provisions of this Section 9.36.130, a decision of the City Council to designate a Historic District shall be in full force and effect from and after the effective date of the ordinance approving, in whole or in part, the application for the designation of a Historic District.
n. The City Council shall by ordinance have the power, after a public hearing, to amend, modify or rescind any decision to designate a Historic District and to make any preliminary or supplemental designations, determinations or decisions, as additions thereto. The Commission shall have the power to forward the recommendations of the Commission to the City Council on its own motion or at the direction of the City Council.
o. The City Council shall determine the instances in which cases scheduled for public hearing may be continued or taken under advisement. In such instances, no new notice need be given of the further hearing date, provided such date is announced at the scheduled public hearing.
p. Whenever an application for the designation of a Historic District has been disapproved or deemed disapproved by the Commission or the City Council, no application which contains the same or substantially the same information as the one which has been disapproved shall be resubmitted to or reconsidered by the Commission or City Council within a period of five years from the effective date of the final action upon such prior application. However, if significant new information is available, the City Council, upon recommendation from the Landmarks Commission, may waive the time limit by resolution and permit a new application to be filed. In addition, an application of all owners of the majority of parcels within the subject area proposed for Historic District designation, may be resubmitted or reconsidered notwithstanding said five year time period. (Prior code § 9609; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.140 Alterations and demolitions: Criteria for issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. For purposes of this Chapter, the Landmarks Commission, or the City Council on appeal, shall issue a certificate of appropriateness for any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel, or of or to a building or structure within a Historic District if it makes a determination in accordance with any one or more of the following criteria.
a. In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, removal or relocation, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or to a Landmark Parcel, the proposed work would not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any exterior feature of the Landmark or Landmark Parcel upon which such work is to be done.
b. In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal or relocation, in whole or in part, of or to a building or structure within a Historic District, the proposed work would not be incompatible with the exterior features of other improvements within the Historic District, not adversely affect the character of the Historic District for which such Historic District was designated, or not be inconsistent with such further standards as may be embodied in the ordinance designating such Historic District. For any proposed work to any building or structure whose exterior features are not already compatible with the exterior features of other improvements within the Historic District, reasonable effort shall be made to produce compatibility, and in no event shall there be a greater deviation from compatibility.
c. In the case of any proposed construction of a new improvement upon a Landmark Parcel, the exterior features of such new improvement would not adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the exterior features of other existing improvements situated upon such Landmark Parcel.
d. The applicant has obtained a certificate of economic hardship in accordance with Section 9.36.160.
e. The Commission makes both of the following findings:
1. That the structure does not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship and does not display such aesthetic or artistic quality that it would not reasonably meet the criteria for designation as one of the following: National Historic Landmark, National Register of Historic Places, California Registered Historical Landmark, or California Point of Historical Interest.
2. That the conversion of the structure into a new use permitted by right under current zoning or with a conditional use permit, rehabilitation, or some other alternative for preserving the structure, including relocation within the City, is not feasible.
f. In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, removal or relocation, in whole or in part, to interior public space incorporated in a landmark designation pursuant to Section 9.36.110, the proposed work would not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any interior feature of the landmark structure. (Prior code § 9610; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1083CCS, adopted 2/28/78; Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.150 Certificate of appropriateness for structures of merit.
a. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required for the alteration, restoration, construction or relocation of a Structure of Merit. However, the Architectural Review Board or the Planning Commission shall take into consideration the fact that the building has been designated a Structure of Merit in reviewing any permit concerning such structure.
b. Application for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of a Structure of Merit shall be made on a form furnished by the Planning Division. An application shall be processed in accordance with the same procedures set forth in Sections 9.36.170 and 9.36.180 of this Code.
c. In an effort to agree to a means of historically preserving a Structure of Merit proposed for demolition, the Landmarks Commission shall have the following powers:
1. During a one hundred and eighty day time period commencing from proper filing of an application for certificate of appropriateness, the Commission may negotiate with the owner of a Structure of Merit, or with any other parties, in an effort to agree to a means of historically preserving the designated property. The negotiations may. include, but are not limited to, acquisition by gift,purchase, exchange, condemnation or otherwise of the Structure of Merit.2. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Commission shall have the power to extend the required one hundred and eighty day time period to a duration not to exceed a three hundred and sixty day time period in any case where the Commission determines that such an extension is necessary or appropriate for the continued historical preservation of a Structure of Merit. (Prior code § 9610.1; added by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.160 Certificate of economic hardship.
a. Application for a certificate of economic hardship shall be made on a form furnished by the Planning Division. An application shall be processed in accordance with the same procedures set forth in Sections 9.36.170 and 9.36.180 of this Code.
b. The Landmarks Commission may solicit expert testimony or require that the applicant for a certificate of economic hardship make submissions concerning any or all of the following information before it makes a determination on the application:
1. Estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition or removal, and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendations of the Landmarks Commission for changes necessary for the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. In connection with any such estimate, rehabilitation costs which are the result of the property owner's intentional or negligent failure to maintain the designated landmark or property in good repair shall not be considered by the Landmarks Commission in its determination of whether the property may yield a reasonable return to the owner.2. A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation.
3. Estimated market value of the property in its current condition; estimated market value after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition or removal; estimated market value after any changes recommended by the Landmarks Commission; and, in the case of a proposed demolition, estimated market value after renovation of the existing property for continued use.
4. In the case of a proposed demolition, an estimate from an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser or other real estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property.
5. Amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom the property was purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer.
6. If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the property for the previous two years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period.
7. If the property is not income-producing, projections of the annual gross income which could be obtained from the property in its current condition, in its rehabilitated condition, or under such conditions that the Landmarks Commission may specify.
8. Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two years.
9. All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property.
10. Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two years.
11. Assessed value of the property according to the two most recent assessments.
12. Real estate taxes for the previous two years.
13. Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for profit or not-for profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture or other.
14. Any other information considered necessary by the Landmarks Commission to a determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners.
c. In considering an application for a certificate of economic hardship, the Commission shall consider all relevant factors. In order to grant a certificate of economic hardship, the Landmarks Commission must make a finding that without approval of the proposed demolition or remodeling, all reasonable use of or return from a designated landmark or property within a Historic District will be denied a property owner. In the case of a proposed demolition, the Landmarks Commission must make a finding that the designated landmark cannot be remodeled or rehabilitated in a manner which would allow a reasonable use of or return from such landmark or property to a property owner.
d. Upon a finding by the Commission that without approval of the proposed work, all reasonable use of or return from a designated landmark or property within a historic district will be denied a property owner, then the application shall be delayed for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty days. During this period of delay, the Commission shall investigate plans and make recommendations to the City Council to allow for a reasonable use of, or return from, the property, or to otherwise preserve the subject property. Such plans and recommendations may include, but are not limited to, provisions for relocating the structure, a relaxation of the provisions of the ordinance, a reduction in real property taxes, financial assistance, building code modifications and/or changes in zoning regulations.
e. If, by the end of this one hundred twenty day period, the Commission has found that without approval of the proposed work, the property cannot be put to a reasonable use or the owner cannot obtain a reasonable economic return therefrom, then the Commission shall issue a certificate of economic hardship approving the proposed work. If the Commission finds otherwise, it shall deny the application for a certificate of economic hardship and notify the applicant by mail of the final denial. (Prior code § 9610.5; added by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.170 Certificate of appropriateness/certificate of economic hardship procedure. An application for a certificate of appropriateness or an application for a certificate of economic hardship approving any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel, or of or to a building or structure within a Historic District shall be processed in accordance with the following procedure:
a. Any owner of a Landmark, or of a building or structure within a Historic District, may request the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship by properly filing with the Director of Planning an application for such certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship on a form furnished by the Planning Division. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship shall include such plans, specifications, statements of work, and any other information which are reasonably required by the Landmarks Commission to make a decision on any such proposed work. An application shall be deemed complete within thirty days after the Planning Division receives a substantially complete application together with all information, plans, specifications, statements of work, and any other materials and documents required by the appropriate application forms supplied by the City. If, within the specified time period, the Planning Division fails to advise the applicant in writing that his or her application is incomplete and to specify additional information required to complete that application, the application shall automatically be deemed complete.
b. The Director of Planning shall schedule a public hearing to be held within forty-five days of the date on which an application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship and shall make a preliminary recommendation to the Commission on or before the date scheduled for a public hearing as to the appropriateness and qualification of the application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship.
c. Not more than twenty days and not less than ten days prior to the date scheduled for a public hearing, notice of the date, time, place and purpose thereof shall be given by at least one publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation, shall be mailed to the applicant, and to the owners and residents of all real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the Landmark Parcel upon which a Landmark is situated in the case of any proposed work to a Landmark, or within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the lot or lots on which a building or structure within a Historic District is situated in the case of any proposed work to a building or structure within a Historic District, using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown on the records of the City Clerk. The failure to send notice by mail to any such real property owner where the address of such owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. The Commission may also give such other notice as itmay deem desirable and practicable.
d. The Commission shall have up to six months, or one year if the project requires an Environmental Impact Report, to render a decision on the certificate application. If the Commission does not render a decision within this time period, then the certificate application shall be automatically deemed approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission may mutually agree with the applicant for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship to extend the six months or one year time period in which the Commission must take action to another time period which is mutually agreeable. The time period provided for in this Section shall be extended by the time period provided for in Section 9.36.160(d) when applicable.
e. The decision of the Commission shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon to reach the decision, and such decision shall be filed with the Director of Planning.
f. Subject to the provisions of Section 9.36.180 of this Chapter, upon the rendering of such decision to approve an application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship, the Commission shall issue the certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship within a reasonable period of time and such issued certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship may be obtained by the applicant from the Planning Division.
g. Subject to other provisions of this Section 9.36.170 and Section 9.36.180 of this Chapter, a decision of the Commission shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the rendering of such decision by the Commission. A certificate of economic hardship may be appealed to the City Council in the same manner and according to the same procedures as for a certificate of appropriateness.
h. Subject to other provisions of this Section 9.36.170, a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the issuance by the Commission. Any certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship issued pursuant to this Chapter shall expire of its own limitation within a one hundred eighty day time period. In addition, any such certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship shall also expire and become null and void if such work authorized is suspended or abandoned for a one hundred eighty day time period after being commenced.
i. The Commission shall have the power, after a public hearing, to amend, modify or rescind any decision to approve, in whole or in part, an application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship and to make any preliminary or supplemental designations, determinations or decisions, as additions thereto.
j. The Commission shall determine the instances in which cases scheduled for public hearing may be continued or taken under advisement. In such instances, no new notice need be given of the further hearing date, provided such date is announced at the scheduled public hearing.
k. The following rules shall limit the resubmittal of an application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship:
1. Whenever an application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship for demolition has been disapproved or deemed disapproved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, no application which is the same or substantially the same as the one which has been disapproved shall be resubmitted to or reconsidered by the Commission or City Council for a period of five years from the effective date of the final action upon the prior application. A certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship for demolition may be refiled at any time during the five year period provided that the applicant submits significant additional information which was not and could not have been submitted with the previous application. A refiled application shall be processed in the manner outlined in Section 9.36.170. Under this provision, should the applicant still seek to demolish the landmark structure after the five year period has expired, a new and separate certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship application would be required to be refiled. This application shall be subject to the same conditions as the prior application.2. Whenever an application for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship for other than demolition has been disapproved or deemed disapproved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, no application which is the same or substantially the same as the one which has been disapproved shall be resubmitted to or reconsidered by the Commission or City Council within a period of one hundred eighty days from the effective date of the final action upon such prior application. A certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship for other than demolition may be refiled at any time during the one hundred eighty day period provided that the applicant submits significant additional information, which was not and could not have been submitted with the previous application. A refiled application shall be processed in the manner outlined in Section 9.36.170. Under this provision, should the applicant still seek approval for other than the demolition of a landmark structure after the one hundred eighty day period has expired, a new and separate certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship application would be required to be refiled. This application shall be subject to the same conditions as the prior application. (Prior code § 9611; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1429CCS, adopted 12/8/87; Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted7/23/91)
9.36.180 Appeals. An appeal to the City Council of an action of the Landmarks Commission shall be processed in accordance with the following procedure:
a. Each of the following actions by the Commission may be appealed to the City Council:
1. A determination of the Commission that an application for the designation of a Landmark or of a Historic District does not merit formal consideration by the Commission, and a determination thereto not to schedule a public hearing.2. A decision of the Commission, after a public hearing, to approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove an application for the designation of a Landmark.
3. A decision of the Commission, after a public hearing, defining and describing an appropriate Landmark Parcel upon which a Landmark is situated.
4. A determination of the Commission, after a public hearing, amending, modifying or rescinding any decision to designate a Landmark or Landmark Parcel, or any preliminary or supplemental designations, determinations or decisions, as additions thereto.
5. A decision of the Commission to approve in whole or in part, or disapprove an application for a certificate of appropriateness.
6. Any decision of the Commission relating to a structure of merit.
7. The approval or disapproval of an application of a Landmark, Historic District, Structure of Merit, or certificate of appropriateness that occurred as a result of the expiration of the required time periods for processing such applications.
b. Any person may appeal a determination or decision of the Commission by properly filing with the Director of Planning and the City Clerk a notice of appeal on a form furnished by the Planning Department. Such notice of appeal shall be filed with the Director of Planning and the City Clerk within a ten day time period commencing from the date that such determination or decision was filed with the Director of Planning or from the date an application is deemed approved or disapproved because of the failure to comply with any time period set forth in this Chapter. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee required by law. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, any member of the Commission or City Council may request a review by the Commission or City Council of any determination or decision of the Commission without the accompaniment of such fee in the amount required by law.
c. The City Council shall schedule a public hearing to be held within forty-five days after the notice of appeal is properly filed with the Director of Planning and the City Clerk.
d. Not more than twenty days and not less than ten days prior to the date scheduled for a public hearing, notice of the date, time, place and purpose thereof shall be given by the Director of Planning by at least one publication in a daily newspaper of general circulation, and shall be mailed to the appellant, owner of the Landmark in the case of any action regarding a Landmark, owners of all real property within the Historic District in the case of any action regarding an entire Historic District, owners of all real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the Landmark Parcel in the case of any action regarding a Landmark, owners of all real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the Historic District in the case of any action regarding an entire Historic District, and to owners of all real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the lots or lots on which a building or structure is located in the case of any action regarding a building or structure within a Historic District, using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown on the records of the County Assessor. The failure to send notice by mail to any such real property where the address of such owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed designation. The Commission or the City Council may also give such other notice as it may deem desirable and practicable.
e. At the conclusion of a public hearing, or any continuation thereof, but in no case more than thirty days from the date set forth the initial public hearing, the City Council shall render its decision on the notice of appeal and shall approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the prior determination or decision of the Commission. If the City Council fails to take action on the notice of appeal within the thirty day time period, the notice of appeal shall be deemed disapproved, and it shall be the duty of the City Clerk to certify such disapproval.
f. The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon to reach the decision, and such decision shall be filed with the Director of Planning and the City Clerk.
g. Upon the rendering of such decision by the City Council, the appellant and the owner of the Landmark in the case of a decision regarding a Landmark, the owners of all real property within the Historic District in the case of a decision regarding an entire Historic District, or the owner of a building or structure in the case of a building or structure within a Historic District shall be given written notification of such decision by the Director of Planning, using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown in the records of the City Clerk. A decision of the City Council on a notice of appeal shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the rendering of such decision by the City Council. (Prior code § 9612; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1429CCS, adopted 12/8/87; Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.190 Maintenance and repair. Every owner, or person in charge, of a Landmark, or of a building or structure within a Historic District, shall have the duty of keeping in good repair all of the exterior features of such Landmark, or of such building or structure within a Historic District, and all interior features thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior features of such Landmark, or of such building or structure within a Historic District to deteriorate, decay, or become damaged, or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. All designated buildings or structures shall be preserved against such decay and be kept free from structural defects through the prompt repair of any of the following:
a. Facades which may fall and injure members of the public or property.
b. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation, defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports, deteriorated walls or other vertical structural supports.
c. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members which age, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
d. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations or floors, including broken windows or doors.
e. Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior wall covering, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering.
f. Any fault or defect in the building which renders it not properly watertight or structurally unsafe.
This Section 9.36.190 of this Chapter shall be in addition to any and all other provisions of law requiring such Landmark, or such building or structure within a Historic District to be kept in good repair. (Prior code § 9613; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.200 Unsafe or dangerous conditions. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall prohibit the making of any necessary alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel, or of or to a building or structure within a Historic District pursuant to a valid order of any governmental agency or pursuant to a valid court judgment, for the purpose of remedying emergency conditions determined to be dangerous to life, health or property. A copy of such valid order of any governmental agency or such valid court judgment shall be filed with the Director of Planning and in such cases, no certificate of appropriateness from the Landmarks Commission shall be required. (Prior code § 9614; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.210 Ordinary maintenance. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior features of a Landmark, or of a building or structure within a Historic District which does not involve any detrimental change or modification of such exterior features. In such cases, the work must be approved by the Landmarks Commission Secretary and no certificate of appropriateness from the Landmarks Commission shall be required. The administrative determination is appealable to the Landmarks Commission and shall be filed and processed in the same manner as a certificate of appropriateness. Examples of this work shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Construction, demolition or alteration of side and rear yard fences.
b. Construction, demolition or alteration of front yard fences, if no change in appearance occurs.
c. Repairing or repaving of flat concrete work in the side and rear yards.
d. Repaving of existing front yard paving, concrete work, and walkways, if the same material in appearance as existing is used.
e. Roofing work, if no change in appearance occurs.
f. Foundation work, if no change in appearance occurs.
g. Chimney work, if no change in appearance occurs.
h. Landscaping, unless the Landmark Designation specifically identifies the landscape layout, features, or elements as having particular historical, architectural, or cultural merit. (Prior code § 9615; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.220 Map. All designations of Landmarks and any definitions and descriptions of a Landmark Parcel thereto, and all designations of Historic Districts, shall be recorded on a Landmark and Historic District map by the Director of Planning. (Prior code § 9616; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.230 Voluntary restrictive covenants. Upon approval by the City Council, the owner of a Landmark may enter into a restrictive covenant with the City regarding such Landmark after negotiations with the Landmarks Commission. (Prior code § 9617; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.240 Waiver. The Building Officer of the City shall have the power to vary or waive any provision of the Santa Monica Building, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical or Plumbing Codes, pursuant to such Codes, in any case which he determines that such variance or waiver does not endanger the public health or safety, and such action is necessary for the continued historical preservation of a Landmark. (Prior code § 9618; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.250 Extension of certificate of appropriateness. The City Council, following recommendation from the Landmarks Commission, may extend by resolution the time period for exercising a certificate of appropriateness as provided for in Section 9.36.170(h) for a period of up to one hundred eighty days upon such terms and conditions as the City Council deems appropriate. An extended certificate of appropriateness may be extended in accordance with the provisions of this Section. An extended certificate of appropriateness shall expire if the work authorized thereby is not commenced by the end of the extension period. Except as otherwise provided for in this Section, all provisions of this Code applicable to a certificate of appropriateness shall apply to an extended certificate of appropriateness. (Prior code § 9619; added by Ord. No. 1028CCS, adopted 3/24/76; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.260 Recordation of landmarks and historic districts. All buildings or structures designated as Landmarks or as part of a Historic District pursuant to this Chapter shall be so recorded by the City in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. The document to be recorded shall contain the name of theowner or owners, a legal description of the property, the date and substance of the designation, a statement explaining that the demolition, alteration, or relocation of the structure is restricted, and a reference to this Section authorizing the recordation. (Prior code § 9620; added by Ord. No. 1348CCS, adopted 11/26/85; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.270 Preservation incentives.
a. Architectural Review Exemption. All structures designated as landmarks and any contributing building or structure within a historic district that requires a certificate of appropriateness shall be exempt from review by the Architectural Review Board. The Landmarks Commission may refer any matter to the Architectural Review Board for comment.
b. Building Permit and Planning Application Fees. All building permit and planning fees for Administrative Approval applications shall be waived for designated Landmarks or contributing structures located in a historic district.
c. Certificate of Appropriateness Fees. All certificate of appropriateness fees for any alteration, restoration or construction, in whole or in part, to a designated Landmark or to a contributing structure located in a historic district shall be waived.
d. Any parking incentives permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
e. Streetscape Improvements in Historic Districts. Whenever streetscape improvements are proposed by the City in areas that are designated historic districts, the City shall consider the use of materials, landscaping, light standards and signage that are compatible with the area's historic and architectural character.
f. State Historical Building Code. The California State Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8, California Administrative Code) shall be applied to alterations to designated Structures of Merit, landmarks, and contributing structures located in historic districts.
g. Historical Property Contracts. Designated Structures of Merit, landmarks and contributing structures located in historic districts that are privately owned shall be considered qualified historical properties eligible for historical property contracts submitted or entered into, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12, commencing with Section 50280, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 1, Title 5, of the California Government Code upon resolution approval by the City Council. (Prior code § 9621; added by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.280 CEQA time extensions. Any time periods set forth in this Chapter may be extended by the Director of Planning by such periods as are necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Prior code § 9622; added by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
9.36.290 The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
a. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Historic District application for the Third Street Neighborhood, and has reviewed and considered the recommendation on the application transmitted from the Landmarks Commission.
b. The City Council finds and declares that:
1. The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District possesses aesthetic significance to Santa Monica in that the area displays a high percentage of original, turn of the century, structures, a consistency in building type, primarily the California bungalow, and a close association with the natural environment, as demonstrated in the particular by the siting of the homes on the east side of Third Street which are set into the slope of the hill. These elements combine to create an area with both a sense of place and a sense of Santa Monica's past.2. The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District possesses historical economic significance to Santa Monica in that the Vawter family, leading developers of the Neighborhood, were also influential in the economic success of Ocean Park through the founding and operation of Ocean Park's first bank and through the ownership and operation of one of Ocean Park's earliest businesses and tourist attractions, the Ocean Park Floral Company. In addition, the development of piers, bathhouses and hotels stimulated growth in the Ocean Park area by providing jobs and attracting both residents and visitors to Ocean Park and to the Third Street Neighborhood.
3. The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District possesses historic significance to Santa Monica in that the neighborhood is associated with many prominent early City residents, including the Vawter, Hostetter and Archer families, and Abbot Kinney. The Vawters subdivided the District into residential lots, and also assisted in the establishment of Ocean Park's first water company and Santa Monica's first regular transportation service to Ocean Park. Moses Hostetter and his son William were both Neighborhood residents (2601 Second Street and 237 Beach Street, respectively). Moses Hostetter was a member of the Santa Monica Board of Trustees between 1896 and 1900, serving as chairman of the police, fire, and light committees. Alvin Archer constructed the American Colonial Revival home at 245 Hill Street and was also a founder of Ocean Park's first volunteer fire brigade. His wife, Louetta, was Ocean Park's first postwoman. Abbot Kinney, before developing "Venice of America," owned property on the west side of Second Street in the District, and also gave Ocean Park its name, naming the area after the eucalyptus groves planted by the Vawters near South Santa Monica Beach.
4. The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District possesses architectural significance to Santa Monica in that the area displays a variety of architectural styles, from Victorian to Gothic, to American Colonial Revival, to California Craftsman, to Spanish Colonial Revival, which provide a visual representation of the Neighborhood's development through the 1930s. In addition, the Neighborhood is dominated by bungalows; twenty-nine bungalows and one bungalow court are extant in the District. While typically designed in a variety of architectural styles, the common bungalow theme is the association with the surrounding environment, the use of front porches, sun porches, front steps, overhanging eaves, and numerous windows to provide views and to merge the interior and exterior landscapes. The Third Street Neighborhood is a representative example of this architectural movement in Santa Monica.
5. The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District possesses cultural significance to Santa Monica in that the area has ties to Santa Monica's religious, artistic and political life through the inclusion of both the Church in Ocean Park and the Iglesia El Sermonte Del Monte Assembleas De Dios (built in 1916 as the First Baptist Church) in the District, the Neighborhood's proximity to the murals along the Ocean Park Boulevard/Fourth Street Overpass, and the use of the Archer House by the Ocean Park Community Center.
c. The Third Street Neighborhood Historic District boundaries consist of the area bounded on the east by the rear property line of the parcels on the east side of Third Street; bounded on the south by Hill Street including the parcels on the south side of the street but excluding the parcel on the southeast corner of Hill Street and Third Street; bounded on the west by the rear property line of the parcels on the west side of Second Street; and bounded on the north by Ocean Park Boulevard.
d. Structures that contribute to the character and integrity of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District shall be defined as all structures built prior to 1935; noncontributing structures and sites shall be defined as post 1935 developments and vacant parcels.
e. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.36.130, until such time as an ordinance is adopted that specifies the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition of or to a building or structure within the Historic District that can occur without prior approval of a certificate of appropriateness, any such work must obtain approval of a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship by the Landmarks Commission. (Prior code § 9630; added by Ord. No. 1535CCS, adopted 8/7/90; amended by Ord. No. 1590CCS § 1, adopted 7/23/91)
52. Shotgun
House, circa 1899
Moved from 2712 Second Street to the Santa Monica Airport
Architect: Unknown
Designation: 11 January 1999
"Known as a "shotgun house", this structure is one room wide, one story tall, and several rooms deep. The shotgun house is a vernacular American building type that resulted from a synthesis of sources from the Caribbean region, Europe, and Africa. Its form was adaptable to a variety of circumstances under which temporary or inexpensive housing was required.
"This house may have been constructed initially as a beach cottage, or may have housed workers associated with the nearby rail or oil industries. It is now in storage awaiting a relocation site." p. 21
Andrea Schulte-Peevers and David Peevers Los Angeles, Lonely Planet: Oakland, 2nd ed., 1996(1999), 351pp., 1999, 1996, 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, 1940s, 1930, 1920s, 1916, 1880s
Painting & Sculpture
"The first art schools in Los Angeles date to the 1880s and include the LA School of Art and Design, founded by Louisa Garden MacLeod, and the College of Fine Arts at the University of Southern California. A decade or so later, the young city saw an influx of painters migrating to sunnier climes from the East Coast and also from San Francisco. Many settled around the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena as well as Topanga Canyon, Laguna Beach (Orange County) and Avalon on Catalina Island. Known as the 'Eucalyptus School,' these painters specialized in pleasant Impressionist-style landscapes with natural and pastel color palettes.
"The seeds of Modernism were laid in 1916. Rex Slinkard and Stanton Macdonald - Wright* founded the Modern Art Society whose members were largely artists returning to LA from the East Coast or Europe where they had picked up Cubism, Expressionism and Fauvism. The Otis Art Institute, another important college that survives, also dates roughly to this time. Major Modernists from the '20s to the '40s included Jackson Pollack, Charles White, Man Ray, Eugene Berman*, Albert King and Oskar Fischinger. While many were thematically inspired by the California landscape and sunlight initially, by the '40s and '50s, attention turned to the materialism, consumerism and technological progress that characterized the era.
"The trend continued through the '60s when LA experienced a major art boom with a slew of new galleries and museums opening and painters migrating to the city from all over the world. Among them flourished a gaggle of avant-garde artists including Edward Kienholz, Robert Irwin and John Mason, whose works were pioneered by the Ferus Gallery. Other major artists were David Hockney, who had come here from England, Richard Diebenkorn* and Ed Ruscha. the '70s saw an emergence of art by ethinic artists, notably the Latino group 'Los Four' (Frank Romero, Beto de la Rocha, Gilbert Lujan* and Carlos Almaraz), which focused on public art and gave the city many colorful murals and extravagant sculptures. Women artists were always underrepresented, although muralist Judith Baca has certainly left her mark all over the city." pp. 30 - 31.
Frank Gehry* (born 1929)
"Frank O Gehry* is regarded as one of the most outstanding contemporary LA architects. He often uses unconventional materials such as plastic sheering (sic., sheeting?) and wire-mesh screens in his designs, which still seem to integrate into their respective environments. He was the recipient of several honorary doctorate degrees and countless awards, including the prestigious pritzker Prize for Architecture (1989). His designs in LA include the Santa Monica Place shopping mall (1981), the Cabrillo Maritime Museum (1981), the Temporary Contemporary Museum (1983) and Loyola Law School (1984). He is also the architect of the future Walt Disney Concert Hall . . . "
{Santa Monica Place retrofitting has removed the Gehry facade and several other buildings are notable in Santa Monica, and specifically Ocean Park: an apartment building on Highland; the former Egg Factory on Main Street; and the former Chiat/Day Building.} p.36
"Generations of people around the world have grown up thinking Santa Monica is California. . . . " p. 180
"Kinney* (d. 1920) may have been a little kooky, but he unwittingly set the trend for the Venice of the future. Throughout the 20th century, the communtiy attracted whatever was the counterculture of its decade, be it Lawrence Lipton* and Stuart Perkoff* of the '50s Beat generation, the hippies of the '60s (Jim Morrison and the Doors were among those who lived here), the New Agers of the '70s and '80s, or the Rollerblading, image-obsessed babes and dudes of the '90s. In many ways, much more than Berverly Hills and certainly more than Hollywood, Venice generates the image of the free-wheeling, laid back, slightly crazed but creative and cutting-edge city that many people expect LA to be.
" . . . two of California's most famous indoor gyms: Gold's Gym at 360 Hampton Drive, and World Gym at 812 Main St. . . .
"Architecturally, Venice is often as bizarre as its boardwalk. Look no farther than Venice's north entrance, on Main St. at Rose Ave. for cases in point: artist Jonathan Borofsky's 34-foot 'Ballerina Clown' on the facade of the Venice Renaissance Building, and four-story binoculars, the work of Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, posing as the front door to the Chiat/Day Inc. advertising agency. . . . " p. 184
{Gehry designed the building that Chiat/Day has now moved from.}
Bicycling & In-line Skating
" . . . the South Bay Bicycle Trail, a flat 22-mile paved path that follows the beach south from Santa Monica to Torrance Beach, with a detour around the yacht harbor at Marina del Rey. . . .
"Bike-rental places include Perry's Rentals with four outlets renting beach cruisers, tandems and in-line skates along the beach path in Santa Monica. . . . Skating lessons are offered on weekends. . . ." p.213
Health Clubs
"Angelenos' obsession with their bodies translates into a profusion of health clubs, featuring the latest in exercise equipment and workout classes. New trends are usually spawned here before moving on to the rest of the country and the world (aerobics, step aerobics and kick-boxing, for example.)
". . . If you want to pump iron with the pros, head to the lengendary Gold's Gym, 360 Hampton Drive in Venice, where you might even catch a glimpse of the next Mr. Universe. This is the gym where Arnold Schwarzeneger once bulked up for the title. . . . It's open daily until midnight." p. 214
{Now Governor Schwarzenegger.}
Places to Stay-Santa Monica
"Budget Inexpensive lodgings have been rare ever since Santa Monica was catapulted onto the trendiness bandwagon. . . .
"Mid-Range By far the best bet in this price category is the Sea Shore Motel, 2637 Main St., which is ingenuously named, given that it's a few hundred yards from the beach. A good value, well-run and with a lot of European influences, the motel is owned by a German family (the Frau who serves up the food in the adjoining cafe/restaurant is actually named Brunhilde!), and you'll meet a lot of European travelers here. They serve a hearty German-style breakfast here - if you wish - consisting of cold-cuts, cheese and baked rolls, for around $5. Standard rooms are $65, and suites sleeping up to four are $95. Ask for special deals when checking in.
" . . . the bare-bones Ocean Lodge, at 1667 Ocean Av. Some threadbare rooms go for $110; suites sleeping four or five cost $140 to $160. Prices dip some time after October, so call and barter.
"An excellent choice and a value for the money is the charming Belle Bleu Inn by the Sea, 1670 Ocean Ave., a property with lots of character in the shadow of the giant Loews Santa Monica Hotel. For $115 to $225 you get a suit with a kitchen or kitchette, polished wooden floors and great beaches just a few hundred steps away. Most of the 26 rooms have patios for enjoying the breeze, and parking is free." p. 232
"Top End At the lower end in this price spectrum is the Four Points by Sheraton Santa Monica, 530 W. Pico Blvd., an attractive 309 - room property (formerly the Bay View Plaza), suitable for both families and business travelers. A major renovation has sheathed the spacious rooms and public areas in a contemporary, pleasing color scheme. This hotel is in a good location, 3 blocks from the beach and Santa Monica Pier, and offers easy access to the 10 Fwy. Standard rooms with partial ocean views are $165; rooms with full views are $185." p. 232
" . . .
"Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel, 1700 Ocean Ave., has interior grandeur and a commanding perch right above the Pacific Ocean. Its light-flooded, galleried, five-story glass atrium provides an airy welcome. Each of the 350 rooms and suites blends rattan and wicker furnishings with a subdued palatte of colors. Dining options include the refined Lavande. To help work it all off, there's a Pritikin fitness center, plus Jacuzzis and saunas. Rates run $250 to $450 for rooms, $575 to $2500 for suites.
"Nearby is Shutters on the Beach, 1 Pico Blvd., the only Santa Monica hotel that can claim to be practically built into the sand. It has an elegant Cape Cod appearance, two pricey and acclaimed restaurants and lots of original artwork by such notables as Roy Lichtenstein and David Hockney. Cameras are firmly discouraged here, as Shutters is frequently the nest of very high-profile lovebirds. Some rooms feature fireplaces, private Jacuzzis and a homey feel, with complimentary books, magazines, videos and even waterproof shower radios. Expect rates for 'regular' rooms to start at $325, and around $500 for ocean-view rooms. Suites run $750 to $2000." p.233
Venice
"Mid Range One of the best bargains in LA is the Cadillac Hotel, 8 Dudley Ave, right on Ocean Front Walk. It's a grraceful 1930s Art Deco landmark, featuring rooms with ocean views, color TVs, safes, phones and private baths. There's also a gym and sauna, rooftop sundecks and coin laundry. Each of the private rooms cost $69; bunks in four-person dorms are $20. The suite, with a view from Malibu to Catalina Island, costs $110." p. 233
Santa Monica
"Budget Hands-down the best shopping mall food court is Eatz inside Santa Monica Place on Broadway, at the southern end of the Third Street Premenade. Choices are bewildering, from Chinese stir-fries to kabobs and curries, croissants, cookies and coffee. On the left, as you enter from Broadway, is a pizza joint where minimum-wage workers slide over hot slices to a constant crowd knee-capping each other with their shopping bags. A hilarious sideshow deveops whenever the lissome girls at Hot Dog on a Stick start thumping and pumping their next batch of lemonade in tight-fitting, clown-colored hotpants.
" . . .
"Budget spots also include the Omelette Parlor, 2732 Main St., which has been whipping up some of the best egg dishes and breakfasts in town since they opened during the 'Summer of Love' in 1967. Industrial-weight omelets are $6.50, and beefy deli sandwiches go for around $6. Expect a line on weekend mornings. They serve breakfast and lunch only.
"Lulu's, nearby at 2720 Main St., has fine Mexican dining on a screened-off proch and an interior courtyard featuring a huge 'Day of the Dead' mural of skeletal jazz musicians. Inventive burritos, tacos, tostadas, and more are less than $10, though the perennial favorite - duck enchiladas - rings in at $11.45. For many, the real draw are the crippling margaritas thundering forth from Tino's Tequila Cantina, named for Lula's steadfast busboy. Be afraid." p. 256
Mid-Range
" . . .
"The Galley, 2442 Main St., is a seafood and chop house festooned with Christmas lights and giant clam fountains burbling on the rear patio. It's been there since 1934 and looks it - with sawdust on the floor and battered maritime junk - but customers swear by its grilled swordfish ($18) and huge porterhouse steaks ($24). . . .
"At Jake and Annie's, 2700 Main St., the Dust Bowl meets the Pacific. One speciality is the Oklahoma barbecued platter, though we're partial to the black linguine with rock shrimp. Ideal for the cost conscious are the three-course, early-bird dinners served up between 4 and 6:30 pm. There's occasional piano music and brunch on weekends." p. 257
{Since replaced by an Irish pub}
Top-End
" . . .
"Hotel food isn't usually mind-blowing, but Lavande, at the Loews at 1700 Ocean Ave., may just have the right ingredients for success: a celebrated chef, a knock-out ocean view and a menu brimming with fresh vegetables, fish and meat. Chef Alain Giraud has delved deep into his Provençal roots for such concoctions as striped bass with fennel, anise in pastis sauce and roasted salmon with onion tart. The sun-splashed terrace and pale yellow and green pottery do their part to transport you right to Aix-en-Provence. It's closed Sunday, except for brunch.
"Stepping into Röckenwagner, 2435 Main St., is like dropping into a fine country roadhouse run by old friends. Integrated into the stylish Edgemar Complex, it presents family dininng - kids are not an unusual sight - in a loft-like space beneath a barrel-vaulted ceiling. A placid mural of the German countryside presides over well-spaced tables and booths where since the early '90s the fabled cuisine of owner Hans Röckenwagner has been served up to loyal fans. Herb-crusted lamb loin and the roasted veal with shitake mushrooms are almost worth their $21 price tab. Dinner is served nightly, along with brunch weekends.
"When last we spotted them, actors Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were barreling out of Chinois on Main, 2709 Main St., and into their limo. Such is the illustrious clientele at this classic Wolfgang Puck outpost that hardly an eye was batted. Since 1983, Hollywood's hungry have been nibbling on Chef Makoto Tanaka's Cantonese duck and Shanghai lobster as they emerge from an open kitchen installed beneath a huge copper ventilator. Sure, it's a splurge, but you're more likely to see real stars here than during a tour of Beverly Hills that costs the same. Weekend reservations are hard to come by, though with a few days' notice they can usually be clinched for lunch Wednesday to Friday and dinner weekdays.
"By sheer dint of personality, the 'Terminator' himself has willed Schatzi on Main, 3110 Main St., into some success despite - or perhaps because of - its occasional forays into Mr. Schwarzeneggger's native Austrian cuisine, including the Wienerschnitzel and Zwiebelröstbraten. Many come here just to taste 'the Arnold's' favorite dessert, Kaiserschmarrn - crumbled pancakes mixed with raisins, then carmelized in the oven and served with apple sauce ($9.50). On Cigar Night, the first Monday of the month, $85 buys a four-course dinner, three prime cigars and wine - plus a 90% chance of enjoying it with Arnold himself. . . .
Venice
Budget
". . .
"Just 2 blocks from the beach is one of Venice's most enduring cafes (since 1979), the Rose Cafe, 220 Rose Ave. Frequented by both the beefcakes working out at the nearby Gold's Gym and local artists, this is a terrific place to come for a leisurely breakfast best consumed on the tree-fringed patio. Its breakfast special of a croissant, slice of brie and coffee or tea is served weekdays between 8 and 10 am for a mere $3.46. For lunch, a mouthwatering array of deli salads beckons, while more substantial entrees are available too.
{Note the Rose mural; also the family owns the Indian Restaurant on Main Street and has recently remodeled one of the houses in the Ocean Park Historical District on Third St.}
"Another Venice Institution is the 24-hour Van Go's Ear, 796 Main St., in a yellow house with a rad portrait of the painter himself. Its popularity can't be explained by the quality of the food, which takes stabs at being healthy but is far from gourmet. The place is busiest in the week-end's wee hours when a post-clubbing crowd descends on its oversized, artsy chairs orbiting tiled tables. Replenish your energy with a 'Fruit Fuck' ($3.75). a nutritional cocktail made with psyllium husks, soy protein, wheat grass and lots of juices to make it all palatable.
" . . .
Mid-Range
"Laughter punctuates the lively conversations of the chic patrons at Chaya Venice, at 110 Navy St. Hauling regulars back with a surprisingly reasonably priced Asian menu, it's short on trendiness and long on substance. If you can't decide, have the chef's daily medley, which combines salad, sushi, fish, meat and vegetables. Another good choice is the spread of antipasti, including crab cakes, sashimi, spring rolls and escargot. . . ." p. 259
Top End
"Although not the kind of place that generates gushy reviews, Joe's, 1023 Abbot Kinney Blvd., nevertheless enjoys a loyal following. The owner/chef, Joe Miller*, serves up uniformly sophisticated French California food from a kitchen the size of a walk-in closet. Just about everything on the menu is boud to elicit raves, especially the slow-roasted salmon and the carmelized onion tart. Four-course prix fixe menus are $30 and $40. Resevations are advised. . . . " p.260
Theater
" . . .
" . . . For new and avant-garde plays head to the Powerhouse Theater, 3116 2nd St., {Santa Monica} . . ." p. 271
Coffee Houses
" . . .
"Near Main St. in Santa Monica is the Novel Cafe, 212 Pier Ave. This bookstore cum cafe has crowds of bohemians spilling out onto the sidewalk - sipping java, reading or practicing their foreign language skills. This is a great place to connect with the literary crowd (yes LA does have one.) p. 288
Markets
" . . .
"Santa Monica . . . Ocean Park Blvd. and Main St. (Sunday 9am to noon.)" p.298
Merrill Shindler & Karen Berk (eds.) with Gretchen Kurz ZagatSurvey: Los Angeles, So. California Restaurants, Zagat: NY, 1999.
Linda J. Tomko Dancing Class: Gender, Ethnicity and Social Divide in American Dance, 1890-1920, Indiana University Press, 1999, 284 pp.
Nina and Tim Zagat ZagatSurvey 1999: America's Top Restaurants, 236 pp.
Los Angeles: Top 25 Food Ranking:
Chinois on Main 28
2709 Main St. (bet. Ocean Park Blvd. & Rose Ave.), Santa Monica.
"Consistently the top-rated of Wolfgang Puck*'s SoCal empire, this Franco-Asian "adventure in decor and dining" "excites the eyes and palate" with an "innovative" if "deafening", high-energy setting (designed by wife Barbara Lazaroff*) showcasing Wolf's cutting-edge "Puckerized Chinese" cuisine; "whoever thought catfish could taste so good?"-as Arnold might say, "I'll be back."
Joe's 27
1023 Abbott Kinney Blvd., (bet. Main St. & Westminister Ave.,) Venice
"Call it "a synonym for heaven," this "casual," "cozy" Californian with "minimalist" decor in a rambling Venice storefront transcends its setting thanks to affable-yet-shy Joe Miller*, a regular Joe who happens to be a "master chef," turning out "tasty" home cooking at prices that have locals singing "what a deal"; the restaurant by which some "judge all others," it ranks in LA's Top 10 for both Food and Popularity, so be sure to 'call ahead."
Other Important Places:
Lavande 26
Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel, 1700 Ocean Ave. (between Colorado Ave. & Pico Blvd.), Santa Monica
"After leaving Citrus, Alain Giraud* headed west for the beach, opening this Provençal French "winner with a drop-dead view of the Pacific" in the Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel and garnering steller surveyor reviews: "gorgeous, grand, gourmet," "brilliant," "creative" and "friendly," with the "best soupe de poisson" and "exquisite lavender ice cream" for dessert. "Santa Monica ain't St. Tropez, but you might think otherwise" after a meal at this newcomer with "a promising future.""