1. Wayne Thiebaud's “Potrero Hill,” - Columbia University Graduate ...

1. Wayne Thiebaud’s “Potrero Hill,” 1976. (Courtesy of the artist)
4

Lauren Weiss Bricker
Future Anterior
Volume 1, Number 2
Fall 2004
History in Motion:
A Glance at Historic Preservation
in California
California at the dawn of the 21st century is a restless place.
Exponential population growth has translated into an unrelenting
demand for affordable housing and road systems
designed to efficiently link home with work. Between 1990 and
2000 California’s diverse population increased by 13.8%, with
the two regional areas of Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange
Counties and San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose making up the
second and fifth largest metropolitan areas in the country,
respectively. 1 Historic preservation is frequently at the center
of discussions within this climate of change, defending the
view that often—though not always—there is value in the
existing built environment. This attitude becomes particularly
partisan when posited against the large financial investment
entailed in virtually any development in the state’s inflated
real estate market. These conditions are not unique to
California; however, their scale and scope may be more
extreme than what one finds elsewhere in the nation.
Part of California’s evolving self-perception lies in the fastgrowing
and controversial movement to preserve works of the
“recent past,” i.e., works designed and constructed between
the years 1945-65. In California, works of the recent past are
seen as part of the state’s cultural patrimony, including many
of the period’s iconic buildings and landscapes. Interest in the
recent past is not limited to California. Nationwide, historic
preservationists are treating works associated with the recent
past with greater respect than ever before. Yet, as architectural
historian Richard Longstreth has observed, many individuals
accustomed to identifying historic buildings simply cannot see
postwar works, since they typically lack one single focal point
or vantage point from which a building can best be appreciated.
2 Postwar architecture was born in a period where the ubiquitous
presence of the automobile forced open an expanded
spatial envelope. Visibility from the automobile promoted the
creation of new auto-related building types, as well as dramatically
impacting visual perceptions of the built environment.
Contemporary artist Wayne Thiebaud captured this dynamic
quality of speed in his depiction of commonplace features of
the American landscape in his work “Potrero Hill,” (1976;
Figure 1). 3
In California, the individuals leading the charge for the
preservation of the recent past are often newcomers to the
5

field, particularly compared to other areas of preservation.
Leadership for their activities in northern California emanates
from the local chapter of DoCoMoMo (Documentation and
Conservation of Buildings of the Modern Movement), based in
San Francisco. In southern California, the Los Angeles
Conservancy’s Modern Committee, or Modcom, as they are
fondly known, is a feisty group of preservation advocates.
Individual cities with important collections of postwar
resources, most notably Palm Springs, have promoted the
preservation of its historic modern buildings and, in the
process, have made them part of their community’s image with
benefits to the local tourism economy. Two years ago, the
State Historic Resources Commission, formed a statewide
committee to focus on historic architecture and landscape
architecture of the modern age and issues peculiar to their
preservation. This committee works closely with the State
Historic Preservation Officer and staff to formulate preservation
policy.
The following case studies of current issues have been
selected to illustrate the complexity of preservation of the
recent past within the context of California’s social and economic
conditions.
Recognizing the Ethnic Heritage of Postwar
Southern California: Holiday Bowl
A particularly challenging situation for advocates of auto-oriented
postwar architecture involves works whose significance
derives from their association with cultural groups omitted
from the mainstream of history. Efforts to preserve the Holiday
Bowl and Coffee Shop (1957) placed preservation at the center
of a desire to recognize and respect Los Angeles’ ethnically
diverse community. The bowling alley and cafe was located in
the Crenshaw District, northeast of Los Angeles International
Airport, in the heart of the region’s aerospace industry and
home to a vibrant Japanese- and African-American community
since the 1920s. Advocates for the building, led by the Los
Angeles Conservancy’s Modern Committee, saw it as a unique
expression of the “rich cultural and social history of the
Japanese-American community in Los Angeles.” A 1996 article
published in The Los Angeles Times characterized the facility
as “a kind of museum of tolerance, loyalty and optimism.” 4
Despite these sentiments, the owners of the Holiday Bowl’s
sought to clear the site and construct a “strip mall.” 5
A protracted preservation effort resulted in the designation
of the coffee shop, located at the front of the building
(Figure 2), as a Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Monument, and
the demolition of the bowling center behind it. The main reason
for distinguishing the coffee shop from the rest of the
6

2. Armet and Davis, architects; Helen
Fong, interiors. Holiday Bowl and
Coffee Shop (1957), Los Angeles,
California. (Photo by Jack Laxer)
building is that its exterior architecturally exemplifies a expressionist
commercial mode, commonly known as “Googie,”
which currently enjoys a popularity rooted in the nostalgia of
the 1950s. 6 Architects Louis Armet and Eldon Davis, leaders in
the formulation of the style, designed the entire building
including distinctive interior characteristics ultimately deemed
less significant. These included a 32-lane bowling center, coffee
shop and cocktail lounge/restaurant known as Sakiba.
Holiday Bowl was built by four Japanese-America businessmen
on land they leased. During the postwar period, the
Crenshaw District re-established its community of Japaneseand
African-Americans, embracing returning soldiers and
Japanese-American families interned during the war. By the
1950s, second and third generation Japanese-Americans had
settled in the Crenshaw District, making it one of the largest
Japanese-American communities in Los Angeles. One of the
favorite forms of recreation in the community was bowling,
which many Japanese-Americans took up before World War II,
at the time when it was the fastest growing sport in the United
States. 7
At the Holiday Bowl, Japanese-American and African-
American clientele were catered to in a variety of ways. The
bowling alley was open twenty-four hours to accommodate
the swing shifts of individuals working at local aerospace
plants. Food service was an important part of the experience
at the Holiday Bowl, especially during tournaments when participants
might eat two meals on the premises. Originally the
coffee shop served only western fare, but that was soon modified
to meet the multi-ethnic tastes of the clientele. Among the
dishes prepared by the cook were char siu pork and Louisiana
hot links.
The interior design of the coffee shop incorporated elements
that enjoyed widespread popularity during the period,
though not especially ethnic in origin. These included Charles
7

3. Edward Durrell Stone, architect and
Thomas Church, landscape architect.
Stuart Company (1958), Pasadena,
California. View of entrance façade.
(Photo by Julius Shulman)
and Ray Eames’ Wire-Base Side Chairs and Saucer Lamps
designed by George Nelson. However, Sakiba, the cocktail bar
and restaurant designed by Helen Fong, interior designer of
the firm of Armet and Davis, incorporated several elements
that were vaguely Japanese in origin. Fong suspended sculptures
from the ceiling that were in the shape of the Japanese
Islands and she attached iconic representations of the
Japanese prefectures to the walls. 8
The effort to preserve Holiday Bowl created coalitions
across ethnic, social and cultural groups, and the issue
brought forward a history that was little known outside the
Crenshaw district. Articles appearing in the New York Times,
Los Angeles Times, as well as The Rafu Shimpo published by
the local Japanese American community, discussed the Holiday
Bowl’s central role in the social life of the Crenshaw community.
9 After decades of racial discrimination, Japanese and African
Americans were able to enjoy a relaxed recreational atmosphere
at Holiday Bowl. Unfortunately, by 2003, the cultural
significance of Holiday Bowl was undervalued by a number of
local decision-makers. One councilman dismissed its ethnic
associations as merely of “sentimental value, but it’s got no
historical value. It’s a blight in the neighborhood.” 10 The ultimate
loss of Holiday Bowl points to the need to develop more
effective ways to protect places associated with ethnic and
cultural groups, whose significant historical roles have only
recently been recognized.
Integrated Landscape and Architecture:
Stuart Company, Pasadena
The City of Pasadena promotes its community with iconic
images derived from its Arts and Crafts period neighborhoods
and Beaux-Arts Civic Center. These representations of the preindustrial
world subtly distinguish Pasadena from nearby Los
Angeles, whose ambitious and at times unruly identity derives
8

from its role as a major commercial and manufacturing center.
However, industrialization did have its moment in Pasadena’s
history; during the postwar period, the Pasadena Chamber of
Commerce encouraged manufacturers, especially those associated
with scientific instruments, precision products, scientific
research and light industry to establish facilities in the city.
In response to this invitation, a number of the firms relocated
to Pasadena, or were newly established in the eastern
section of the city where land available for larger plants existed,
along with nearby acreage for housing tracts to accommodate
a projected influx of new employees. 11 Without question
the complex that most fully embodies the concept of the postwar
“suburban factory” in Pasadena is the Stuart Company
(1958), a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility and office
building designed by architect Edward Durrell Stone and landscape
architect Thomas Church (Figure 3). 12 The American
Institute of Architects recognized their successful collaboration
at the time, designating it one of the best buildings of 1958. 13
The Stuart Company building was constructed for the
manufacture and distribution of “diversified ethical pharmaceuticals.”
14 Set back 150 feet from Foothill Boulevard, a main
arterial road, the massive building footprint, which occupies
about one quarter of its 9.4 acre site, appears modest and
fragile. This effect was achieved by setting the building into
the sloped site, with the highest portion facing Foothill
Boulevard. From the road, the complex reads a series of low,
horizontally-oriented elements, exemplifying the type of architecture
Longstreth notes may be invisible to some individuals.
Church designed a landscape consisting of planters, lawn and
a shallow pool. Stone’s building hovers above the setting like
a floating classical pavilion. His signature cast concrete block
screen stretches across the width of property, unifying the
building façade with a series of adjacent parking bays.
The grade of the property drops allowing the insertion of
a second, lower floor. The main floor houses office, laboratory
and storage space; the manufacturing processes are located
below. A gracious atrium with an open staircase internally
links the upper floor with a garden court and dining lounge.
Externally, a swimming pool surrounded by a terrace, pool
house and shade pavilion complete the composition. In
their collaborative design for the Stuart Company, Church and
Stone captured the spirit of corporate patriarchy of their
client, Arthur O. Hanisch, Stuart Company’s original owner,
who wanted to:
9
...build a completely new building concept. He wanted
his building to conform to the landscaping, not in
the general California way but in a way that would

10
combine timeless beauty with increased efficiency
and a utilization of the Southern California climate to
make for maximum comfort for his employees, both
in working and recreation areas.15
The Stuart Company was eventually sold, in 1991 to
Johnson and Johnson/Merck Pharmaceuticals Co., and later
acquired by a public agency, the Metropolitan Transit Authority
(MTA) around 1994. Out of concern for the fate of the building,
Pasadena Heritage, the local historic preservation non-profit
organization, prepared a National Register nomination for the
property, which was finally listed in 1998.
Although the Stone building was called out as significant,
the discussion of Church’s contribution to the site by the nomination’s
author was perplexing. The Stuart Company property
is grouped with Church’s design for the Technical Center for
General Motors (1956) in Warren, Michigan as one of his “bestknown
large-scale projects,” but is not considered significant
in the area of landscape architecture. The author of the nomination
asserts that its landscape architecture “does not possess
exceptional significance on its own, but may become eligible
once it reaches the 50-year mark.” Landscape historian
Charles Birnbaum’s interpretation of this devaluation of
Church’s contribution to the project is consistent with the
“invisibility” of modern landscape architecture for many
involved with the documentation of historic sites. 16 Aside from
the unfortunate disaggregation of landscape and architecture
from the standpoint of the project’s design concept and its
history (Church recommended Stone to the client), this assessment
makes the landscape vulnerable in future rehabilitation
projects of the historic property. 17
In 2000, the City completed its East Pasadena Specific
Plan (the Plan) in preparation for development near a new
light rail service linking Pasadena with downtown Los Angeles.
Originally MTA planned to construct a transit station on the
site of the Stuart Company building (hence the purchase of
the site), but at this point, they have limited their involvement
to building a parking structure between the Stuart Company
and the freeway. One of the commendable goals of the Plan is
to promote Transit Oriented Development (TOD), and specifically
to encourage mixed-use or residential development. The
Plan calls for four hundred housing units to be constructed
within the area that includes the Stuart Company site stating
that the “preservation of the most significant portions of the
Stuart Company building and its landscape [are] mandatory”
(the inclusion of landscape is noteworthy given the ambiguous
language of the National Register nomination). 18 However,
the rear portions of the building (effectively fifty percent of the

original structure) “may be removed to facilitate adaptive use
and preservation of the more visible and architecturally significant
portions of the building.” Clearly, the rear and less “significant”
portions of the Stuart Company were anticipated to
be a site for new development.
A private developer has come forward with a concept to
develop 188 one- to three-bedroom and loft units, with parking
for 296 vehicles. Approximately 39,000 square feet of the
existing Stuart Company building is projected to be demolished.
In its place will be four stories of housing above one to
two levels of parking. Two to three stories of housing will
wrap around the east side of the property, framing the pool
area. The project sponsor is intending to apply for historic
preservation tax certification, which, if granted, would allow it
to apply a 20% tax credit against the cost of rehabilitation to
the property. To qualify for the tax credits, the project needs to
meet the criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation. 19
The project, as reflected in recent documents, is extremely
sensitive in its treatment of the front portions of the buildings.
Detailed analysis of the physical condition of deteriorated
exterior and interior portions of the building, and appropriate
treatments have been carefully identified. Similarly, the landscape
treatment for the planters and other areas visible from
Foothill Boulevard, which are overgrown, appears to be carefully
assessed. 20 Unfortunately, the demolition of the rear portion
of the building makes it difficult to understand how such
a treatment could meet the federal standards for rehabilitation.
Additionally, the new construction bears little relation or
response to Stone’s architecture; neither in composition nor
detailing does it respond to the imagery of the historic building.
Also problematic is the treatment of the pool area. In the
new project, the pool will remain but the bathhouse will be
demolished, and new vegetation will be added. The shade
pavilion will be relocated to a site adjacent to the parking
structure. The new landscape features are characteristic of a
southern California’s Mediterranean landscape tradition rather
than a response to Church’s Modern aesthetic.
The Stuart Company site is an excellent example of the
interrelationship between landscape and architecture in postwar
industrial projects, and the expanded spatial envelope
associated with vehicular visibility is given full play in this
project. If the proposed treatment is accepted as a preservation
solution, one may wish to raise questions about the
extent to which it will compromise the property’s integrity for
the sake of responding to our current needs.
Both the Holiday Bowl and the Stuart Company convey
the historic and aesthetic issues associated with postwar
11

California. Our increasing understanding of the expressive
and cultural values of these works will strengthen the ability
to advocate for their retention, an especially challenging
endeavor within the current over-priced real estate market in
California. Perhaps more significantly, however, is a failure to
appreciate the complete compositions and dynamic visual
perspectives inherent in postwar architecture, resulting in
the partial demolition of buildings while claiming a preservation
victory. In the case of the Holiday Bowl, a sophisticated
architectural statement uniquely connected to the region’s
ethnic community was severely compromised in the loss of
its bowling alley and restaurant in favor of preserving its
“Googie” style coffee shop. The Stuart Company suffers a
similar fate, despite the sensitive treatment of its front portions,
loosing much of its critical landscape composition and
rear portion, this time in the name of adaptive re-use. Until
we as preservationists are better prepared to set guidelines
for the treatment of these examples of “recent history,”
many of these significant buildings of California’s postwar
modernism will continue to be undermined by development
interests and misguided public policy.
Author biography
Lauren Weiss Bricker, Ph.D is an Associate Professor of Architecture at the
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and director of the Archives-Special
Collections in the College of Environmental Design, Cal Poly Pomona. She maintains
a consulting practice in architectural history. Dr. Bricker is Vice-Chair of the
State Historic Resources Commission in California, and co-chair of the
Commission’s Committee on the Cultural Resources of the Modern Age. She is the
recipient of a fellowship from the Clarence S. Stein Institute of Urban and
Landscape Studies (2004) to support her research on The Pragmatists, a study of
the American response to the form and ideology of European Modernism. Dr.
Bricker has received support for her research from the Historical Society of
Southern California/Haynes Foundation, the Institute for Environmental Design, Cal
Poly Pomona, and was also a Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Fellow at the
Huntington Library. She is a co-author of a forthcoming volume on the
Mediterranean House in America (Harry N. Abrams, New York).
Endnotes
1 California has the nation’s largest populations of Hispanic or Latinos (11.8%),
Asians (3.7%), Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (.117%) and American Indians
(.333%).
2 Richard Longstreth, “I Can’t See It; I Don’t Understand It; and It Doesn’t Look Old
To Me,” in Preserving the Recent Past, ed. Deborah Slaton and Rebecca A. Shiffer
(Washington, D.C.: Historic Preservation Education Foundation, 1995), 1-15-20.
3 See also Edward Ruscha’s Thirty Four Parking Lots in Los Angeles, n.p., 1967.
4 Peter Y. Hong, “Another Kind of Holiday Bowl Tradition,” Los Angeles Times. 2
January 1996, B1.
5 John English, “Coalition Fights to the End for the Holiday Bowl,” Conservancy
News 26, no. 2 (March/April 2004), 2.
6 Alan Hess, Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture, (San Francisco: Chronicle
Books, 1986).
7 Beginning in 1916, individuals of color were excluded from the American Bowling
Congress (ABC), the parent organization of the sport. African-Americans formed the
National Negro Bowling Association in 1939. Soon after World War II, Japanese
Americans followed their example by creating the Japanese-America Citizens
League (JACL). See Gail Dubrow with Donna Graves, “Holiday Bowl,” in Sento at
Sixth and Main, (Seattle: Seattle Arts Commission, 2002), 176. On the history of
12

owling in the United States see Andrew Hurley, Diners, Bowling and Trailer Parks:
Chasing the American Dream in the Postwar Consumer (New York: Basic Books,
2001).
8 Dubrow and Graves, 192.
9 For example, see Scott Kurashige, “Can Holiday Bowl Be Saved?” The Rafu
Shimpo, 5 May 2000; John Saito, Jr., “End of an Era: Holiday Bowl, 1958-2000,”
The Rafu Shimpo, 12 May 2000.
10 Jeffrey Gettleman, “Panel Wants Bowling Alley Preserved,” Los Angeles Times, 7
July 2000.
11 “War Years and Development of High Tech Industries,” East Pasadena Specific
Plan, City of Pasadena, 23 October 2000. 2-2, 2-3. A number of relocated or newlyformed
firms had important ties with the aerospace industry, e.g., Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, the consolidated Engineering Corporation, whose space technology
was used in the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle programs.
12 The most complete history of the Stuart Company building is documented in its
National Register Nomination, prepared by Alan Hess for Pasadena Heritage, 1994.
13 “Architects Institute Selects Best Building Design of Year,” New York Times, 25
May 1958.
14 This term encompassed analgesics, vitamins, diet-control aids, tranquilizers and
products for gastro-intestinal therapy. “The Pasadena Stuarts … The Royal Family
of Pharmaceuticals,” The Investor, c. 1958. Stuart Company File, Design and
Historic Preservation Library, City of Pasadena.
15 “Story of Stuart: As Reported by a National Magazine,” reprint by Stuart
Company from Good Packaging-Western Packaging Yearbook, July 1958, n.p.
16 Charles A. Birnbaum, “A Status Report on Preserving and Interpreting Modern
Landscape Architecture: Recent Developments in California and Beyond,”
Preserving the Recent Past. 2, 2-159-2-166.
17 Hanisch told Church that he did not want a California architect; Church recommended
Stone, a New York-based designer who was working, at the time, on the
Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto (another collaborative project with
Church, completed in 1959). Stone was enjoying considerable public attention,
having recently completed the United States Embassy in New Delhi. For a contemporary
biography, see Winthrop Sargeant, “Profiles: From Sassafras Branches,
Edward D. Stone,” New Yorker, 3 January 1959. 32-34, 35, 38-49. The Embassy and
the Stanford Medical Center share a number of features with the Stuart Company
building, as exemplars of a new “formalism.” See William Jordy, “The Formal
Image: USA,” Architectural Review 127 (March 1960); 157-165.
18 East Pasadena Specific Plan, City of Pasadena, 23 October 2000. 5-3.
19 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, rev.
ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990).
20 An explanation and analysis of the trees and shrubs that have survived at the
Stuart Company is included in a study by Joan Woodward. See her forthcoming
article: “Letting Los Angeles Go: Lessons from Feral Landscapes,” Landscape
Review 10(1) 2004.
13