San Francisco Modern & Postmodern Architectural Styles (1960-2000) Historic Context Statement
CONTEXT: ARCHITECTURALMETHODS&STYLES
SUB-CONTEXT: ARCHITECTURALSTYLES
Adopted August21,2024
Cover photo: Aerial view of downtown San Francisco, 1984. Source: San Francisco Public Library, History Center, San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection, AAB-8341.
Preface
Modernand Postmodernarchitecture inSanFranciscoare themes identified withinthe ArchitecturalMethods & Styles context,developed as partof SanFrancisco’s Citywide CulturalResources Survey (SF Survey)Historic Context StatementFramework.Historiccontextstatements are planning documents used toorganize the events related tothe developmentof a style of architecture,neighborhood,thematictopics ortypologies,ora group of people.The Planning Departmentand California Office of HistoricPreservationrelyonthese documents to identify,evaluate,and designate historicallyorculturally significantproperties across the city.These documents arenot comprehensivehistories orcataloguesof the developmentof a theme inthe Citybutare ratherintended as a reference guide forfuture field surveyors. Fordiscussionof SF Surveymethodology,please see How to Use the Citywide Historic Context Statement 1
This historic contextstatementis specificallyfocused onarchitecture,architecturalstyles,and associated landscape designinthe period from1960 to2000,serving as anaddendumtothe San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design (1935-1970) Historic Context Statement (adopted 2011);the previous reportis referredtoasthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970) forshort.The thematicfocus of the contextstatementis Modernand Postmodernarchitectural and landscape designand is therefore focused specificallyonNational Registerof Historic Places (NationalRegister)CriterionCand California Registerof HistoricPlaces (California Register)Criterion 3.Onoccasion,however,properties related tospecificevents thathave impacted the design and construction of Modernand Postmodernbuildings orlandscapes and/orurbandesignorplanning principles should alsobe evaluated underCriterionA/1.
Contributors
This historic contextstatementhas beenprepared byPage &Turnbull, a preservationarchitecture and planning firmwhichhas beenbased inSanFranciscofor over50 years.HannahLise Simonsonis a SeniorAssociate, Cultural Resources PlanneratPage &Turnbulland the primaryauthorof this document.Simonsonholds a M.S. inHistoric PreservationfromThe Universityof TexasatAustin andwas a Planning Departmentintern in2016and 2017,working onhistoric contextstatements forthe Diamond Heights,Excelsior,and Portola neighborhoods. She was the presidentof the NorthernCalifornia Chapterof Docomomo USforfive years (2019-2023) and has oversevenyears of experience inpreservationplanning inSanFrancisco.Her workwas overseenbyChristina Dikas,Principal-in-Charge,and RuthTodd,FAIA, AdvisoryPrincipal,atPage &Turnbull. AllPage &Turnbullstaff responsible forthis documentmeetthe Secretaryof the Interior’s ProfessionalStandards forarchitectural history and/orhistoric architecture.
Cityand Countyof SanFranciscoPlanning Department staff overseeing this projectinclude Melanie Bishop, Senior PreservationPlanner,and Maggie Smith,AICP,SeniorPreservationPlanner, withthe Citywide Cultural Resources Survey team
This historic contextstatementis concerned withextantresources inSanFranciscobuiltfrom1960 to2000 that fallunderthe umbrellas of Modernand Postmodernarchitecture and associated landscapes. The late twentieth centurywas a period of manydivergent and reactionarystrands of architecturaltheoryand designthat challengedthe orthodoxy ofModernism.Some of thesearchitectural explorationsproved tobe dead-ends,orat leastshort-lived.Architectural Postmodernism experiencedafruitfulperiodinthe 1980sandearly1990s,helped along inSanFrancisco bythe policies and preferences of the SanFranciscoPlanning Department.Althoughvery few practitioners would have described themselves ortheirworkas “postmodern,”emphasis on existing urban context,communication, borrowing fromhistory and vernacularprecedents, pluralism,and experimenting with highand low materials and references,were partof this period of architecturalexploration.This period of architecture within living memoryof manySanFranciscans remains polarizing,butwe mustrecognize our ownsubjectivity,aestheticpreferences,and participationinthe cycles of taste whichturneveryfew decades. Some of the most disliked buildings constructed inthe late twentiethcenturyare now beloved features of the skyline including the TransamericaPyramid(1972,WilliamPereira &Associates) and there are significantand influential examplesof alllate twentiethcenturyarchitecturalstyles thatdistinctivelyreflecta period intime and a setof theoretical,socio-economic,and culturalinfluences. Inadditiontomanyarchitecturally notable residentialand neighborhood commercialand institutional buildings fromthe era,SanFranciscointhe late twentiethcenturyalsosaw anunprecedented developmentof its publicrealm.The publicrealmbecame a site of architecturalexpressionwhichshifted fromLate ModerntoPostmoderntoNew Modernbetween1960 and 2000,withthe opening up of the waterfrontfollowing the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake,transformationof formermilitarysites topublicopenspace,redevelopmentof the culturalhub of Yerba Buena Center,and new requirements foropenspace and publicartinthe downtowncore.
“Modernism”and “Postmodernism”here are used as broad umbrella terms thatinclude a numberof related sub-styles and trends orcurrents inarchitecturaldesign.2 Generally,the mainthemes of this documentare Late Modernism(1960s-1980s)andNewModernism(late1980s-2000) whichfallunderthe umbrella of Modernism, andPostmodernism(mid-1970s-2000). Anumberof sub-themes whichhave beenidentified formore detailed discussionin this historic context statementinclude New Formalism,Brutalism,Corporate LateModernism,and Third Bay Tradition, whichgenerallyfallunderthe umbrella of Late Modernism(Fig. 1).While there are many variations and expressions of Late Modernism,Postmodernismand New Modernism,these particularsubthemes were identified based ontheiruniquelyidentifiable characteristics and significantpresence inSan Francisco.In contrast,asanexample,whilethetenets and physicalcharacteristics of Deconstructivismand HighTechStructuralism mayappearinsome buildings,there are notenoughdistinctive examples of these architectural styles builtinSanFranciscofrom1960 to2000 towarranta separate sub-theme contextand evaluative frameworkinthis document.
2 Fordefinitions of terminology, including “Modern Age,” “Modern,” “Modernism,” “ModernMovement,” “Midcentury Modern,” “Post-WarArchitecture,” “RecentPast” and “CulturalLandscape,” refertothe San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design (1935-1970) Historic Context Statement (adopted 2011)
Fig.1.Diagrammatictimelineillustrating“themes”(LateModernism,Postmodernism,andNewModernism) and “sub-themes” (CorporateLateModernism,Brutalism,NewFormalism,andThirdBay Tradition) of thishistoric contextstatement.
(Source: Page& Turnbull,2024.)
This documentpicks upwherethe San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970 (adopted 2011)historic contextstatement(Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970))leftoff,as Modernismtransitioned into Late Modernism.Because architecturaltrends are a continuumratherthandiscrete periods of time,there is someoverlap inthe time periodsaddressedinthishistoric context statementandthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970).This documentlocates Brutalism,New Formalism,and the Third BayTraditionas underthe umbrella of Late Modernism,as theyemerged inSanFranciscointhe 1960s as reactions toordivergences from the orthodoxy of earlierforms of Modernism.Brutalism,New Formalism,and the Third BayTraditionare addressedinthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970),butevaluationcriteria are onlyprovided forBrutalism, and some of the mostimportantexamples of Brutalismwere leftoutdue tothe overarching period of significance forthe documentwhichended in1970.Brutalism,New Formalism,and the Third BayTradition,as wellas Late Modernismmore broadly,extend intothe 1970s and 1980s. Inordertobuild off the workof the Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970),this documentrefers backtothe discussions inthe prior historiccontext statementas wellas the existing evaluative frameworkforBrutalism,withsome updates and revised considerations.
Asstatedinthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935-1970),“Defining Modernismand Modernarchitecturaldesignis a contentious issue thatis subjecttocontinualdebate byarchitects,preservationists,planners and architectural historians. Eventhe validityof classifying buildings intostyles is a subjectunderdebate withinthe academic community. Itappears thatthe onlyconsensus historians canreachonthis subjectis toagree thatthere is a significantdisagreement.”3 The same statementcanbe extended tothe subjectof Late Modernism, Postmodernism, and New Modernism.The notionof architectural“styles”since the Modernera has beenwidely challenged byarchitects and manyscholars,especiallyas the ModernMovement and subsequentarchitectural approaches have tended tobe based around theories of structure,form,material,and programand Bauhaus educationalprinciples ratherthanpatternbooks,catalogs,a rigorouslystandardized Beaux-Arts educational approach,orapprenticeship models.The subjectis furthercomplicated bythe factthatmanypractitioners of
3 SanFrancisco Planning Departmentand MaryBrown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement (SanFrancisco Planning Department, 2011),2.Accessed online February13,2024, https://sfplanninggis.org/docs/Historical_Context_Statements/Modern%20Architecture%20Context%20adopted%20Jan%202011.pdf
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
Postmodernism, evensome of its leading lights,resisted being labeled as such. As Charles Jencks, architectural historian and one of the mostprominenttheorists of Postmodern architecture,said,“mostarchitects,like people,arebored bylabels,finding themreductive and constricting,like ill-fitting suits.There is muchtobe said forthe view thatalllabels stylistic,ideological,historical distort the perceptionof architecture andreduce itto verbalcategories,”butcontinues,“however,words and classifications cannotbe avoided increationand perception.”4
The classificationand grouping of architecturalstyles,inotherwords,while imperfectcanbe a usefultoolfor describing,understanding,and contextualizing architecture,and are baked intothe frameworkof historical resource evaluationinthe formof NationalRegisterand California Registercriteria and guidelines.Thus, architectural historians and evaluators mustproceed withthe caveatthatclassifications and terminologies around architectural style are tools and frameworks forunderstanding architecture,butare notmonolithic or prescriptive,especiallybythe late twentiethcentury.There is some fluiditybywhicharchitects moved between modes orstyles,and some buildings illustrate a hybrid of influences ortransitions and are,thus,difficulttoput inone box oranotherbetweenLate,Post,and New Modern.5
PeriodJustification
While the generalperiod of significance forthe Citywide HistoricContextStatementis 1848-1989,further researchoncertainsubjects as is the case withModernand Postmodernarchitecturalstyles warrants the extensionof the period of significance beyond the 1980s. Todocumenta more complete picture of architecture inSanFrancisco inthe late twentiethcentury,this historiccontext statementbegins with1960,whichis around the time thatLate Modernismemerged inSanFrancisco including offshoots suchas Brutalism,New Formalism,CorporateLateModernism,and the Third BayTradition and extends to2000 toencompass the rise anddecline of Postmodernist architecture inSanFrancisco.The emergenceofNew Modernisminthe 1990s as a response toPostmodernismis alsoaddressed;however,itshould be acknowledged thatNew Modernismhas continued intothe present,and furtherresearchand scholarship willbe required inthe future tounderstand its trends and influences inthe twenty-firstcentury.The year2000 was selected as anend pointforthe period of studyinthe historic context statementforseveralreasons:(a)the period of 1960 to2000 encompasses the vast majority and the heightof builtexpressions of Late Modernismand PostmodernisminSanFrancisco;(b) following the year2000,a numberof muchlargersocioeconomicand politicalshifts occurred thatimpacted construction inSanFrancisco,including a second boominthe techsector;and (c)contextualizing architectural history fromless than25 years agoforthe purposes of evaluationforthe NationalRegisterand California Registerpresents severalchallenges,and more historicaldistance and scholarship willbenefitanyreview of architecture fromthe twenty-firstcenturyforthis purpose. The period of significance forNew Modernist architecture maybe extended beyond 2000 inthe future based onfurtherresearch.
ApproachtoDesignedLandscapes
Itshould be noted thatthe primaryfocus of this documentis architecturaldesignand styles.However,to contextualize the shiftinhow, what,and whyarchitecturaldesignchanged inthe late twentiethcenturyinSan Francisco,a discussionof broadertrends inurbanplanning,historicpreservation,the environmentalmovement, and publicreceptionof and reactions toarchitecture and urbanismis provided.Furthermore,designed landscapes are discussed inthis document,butthe focus of discussionis ondesigned landscapes thatare directlyassociated withand designed inconjunctionwithbuildings ormajordevelopmentprojects suchas corporate plazas,privatelyowned publicopenspaces (POPOS),residentialgardens and courtyards,and
4 CharlesJencks, The New Moderns: From Late- to Neo-Modernism (NewYork:Rizzoli, 1990),17.
5 Discussing thesethreecategories, Jencksnotes,“theclassification of any architect with onetradition ratherthan another will beamatterof degree.” Jencks, The New Moderns,21.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
redevelopmentlandscapes.The subjectof publicparks and designed landscapes inotheropenspaces is discussed,butis expected tobe fullyaddressed inotherhistoriccontextstatements.
OtherRelevant Historic Context Statements
Otherhistoric context statements and surveydocuments withinthe Citywide Surveyrelevantto Modernand Postmodern architecture and landscapes inthe late twentiethcentury include,butare notlimited to, the following:
• San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970 [Adopted 2011] [Modern Architecture HCS 1935-1970]
• Architecture, Planning, & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies [Adopted 2023]
• Bay Area Tradition Styles (1880-1980) [InProgress]
• San Francisco Redevelopment Agency [InProgress]
• Public Art, Monuments & Murals [InProgress]
• Large Apartment Buildings (1900-1978) [InProgress]
• Landscapes (1848-1989) [Planned]
• Diamond Heights [2016 InternDraft]
These and otherrelevantcultural historic context statements are cross-referenced throughoutthis document.
Methodology&Sources Consulted
This historic contextstatementwas prepared using a varietyof primaryand secondarysource materials,as well as interviews withlocalpractitioners and critics.Primarysource materials included architecturaljournals, newspaperarticles,exhibitioncatalogs,and historicalphotographs.Manyof these materials are onfile atthe SanFranciscoPublicLibrary (SFPL),SanFranciscoHistoryRoom.Otherrepositories consulted included the PrelingerArchive;SFMOMALibraryand Archives;California HistoricalSociety;Universityof California,Berkeley Environmental DesignArchives;California College of the Arts (CCA) Library;and the USModernistLibraryonline repositoryof architecturalpublications. Secondarysources included scholarlypublications,architectural monographs,architectural guidebooks,and maps,whichare listed inthe Bibliography of this document. 6 James Shay’s New Architecture San Francisco (SanFrancisco:Chronicle Books,1989)provides a valuable survey of BayArea architects and architecture inthe late 1970s and 1980s inthe formof illustrated interviews.
As the studyperiod of this historiccontextstatementis withinliving memoryof people whowere involved inthe field of architecture and allied professions during the late twentiethcentury,Page &Turnbulltookthe opportunity tomeetwithand interview practitioners,critics,and scholars.These conversations provided
6 Architectural guidebooks published around theturn of thetwenty-first centurywereparticularly valuable forastudy of thelatetwentieth century, including: PacoAsensio and AnaCristina G.Cañizares, San Francisco Houses (Düsseldorf, Germany: TeNeues,2003);PeterLloyd, San Francisco: A Guide to Recent Architecture (London: Ellipsis, 1997);Melody Mason andMichelle Galindo, San Francisco: architecture & design (Düsseldorf, Germany: TeNeues,2005);Mitchell Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide (SanFrancisco: William StoutPublishers, 2006);and Sally B.Woodbridge, John M.Woodbridge, and Chuck Byrne,San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California (Revised Edition. Berkeley:TenSpeedPress, 2005).
valuable insightthatinformed the directionof research.Interviews were typicallyaround anhourlong,and somewereconducted in-personandothers byvideoconferencecall.Conversations werenotrecordedandwere not formaloralhistories, butPage &Turnbulltooknotes during eachconversation. Page &Turnbullis gratefulfor the time and insightprovided by the individuals interviewed,including :LarryBadiner(formerSanFrancisco Zoning Administrator), DavidGill (architectandprofessoratCCAand Academyof ArtUniversity(AAU)),JohnKing (architecture critic atthe San Francisco Chronicle),JeremyKotas (architectand planner),DeanMacris (former SanFranciscoPlanning Director), Mitchell Schwarzer(historian, author, and professoremeritus atCCA),Cathy Simon (architect,formerly apartner atSMWM),DanielSolomon (architect andfounding memberof theCongress forNew Urbanism),JayTurnbull(preservationarchitect),PeterWalker (landscape architect), and EthenWood (architectand professoratAAU and Stanford University).
Page &Turnbullperformed a high-levelreview of previous architecturalsurveys and evaluations,including the 1968 JuniorLeague of SanFranciscosurveypublished in Here Today,1976 Departmentof CityPlanning (DCP) architectural survey,the downtownsurveyconducted byHeritage and published in Splendid Survivors (1979), and resources thatare currentlylisted inthe NationalRegister,California Register,and as Article 10 City Landmarks. Page &Turnbullalsoreviewed HistoricResource EvaluationResponses (HRERs) prepared bythe Planning Department as partof the California EnvironmentalQuality Act(CEQA)review process,and inresponse toHistoric Resource Assessmentapplications. This review was conducted utilizing geospatialdata extracted fromthe Planning Information Map (PIM),provided bythe SanFranciscoPlanning Department.7
The only properties currentlylisted forarchitecturalsignificance as Article 10 CityLandmarks thatdate to19602000areGhirardelliSquare(whichwasadaptedforreuse byWurster,Bernardi&Emmons and Lawrence Halprin inthe 1960s)and the SanFranciscoArts Institute (SFAI)building;however,the locallandmarkdesignationfor SFAI does notexplicitlyrecognize the BrutalistadditionbyPaffard Keatinge-Clay.NationalRegisternominations forGhirardelliSquare and SFAIbothrecognize the significance of theirrespective Modernistadditions and interventions.Glen ParkBARTStation (1973,ErnestBorn)is alsolisted inthe NationalRegister. Here Today did not documentanyproperties constructed inthe 1960s. Splendid Survivors documented a numberof downtown buildings fromthe 1960s and 1970s butdid notprovide themwithsurveyratings.The 1976 DCP survey documented and rated atleast70 properties builtafter1960, and photographed more thatwere notgiven ratings
Planning Department Historic Resource EvaluationResponses (HRERs) have found a numberof properties built between1960 to2000 tobe eligible forlisting inthe California Register.Mostof these properties are downtown commercial buildings,including butnot limitedto: Alcoa Building &Maritime Plaza(1964-67,Wurster,Bernardi& Emmons (WBE);Skidmore,Owings &Merrill(SOM);and Sasaki,Walker&Associates);838 GrantAvenue (1966, Chan/RaderAssociates);430 California Street(1967,Anshen&Allen);50 Beale Street(1967,SOM); 44 MontgomeryStreet(1967, JohnGraham);Transamerica Pyramid &Redwood Park(1971,WilliamPereira & AssociateswithAnthony Guzzardo);750KearnyStreet(1971,ClementChen,JohnCarlWarnecke,T.Y.Lin);Market Street,including U.N.Plaza,Hallidie Plaza,and EmbarcaderoPlaza (1979,MarioCiampi,JohnCarlWarnecke, and Lawrence Halprin);and EmbarcaderoCenter&HyattRegencyHotel(1971-1981,JohnPortman& Associates).Otherproperties found eligible forthe California RegisterinHRERs include a few commercial, institutional, and residentialbuildings elsewhere inthe city.
7 Thegeographic information system(GIS) dataprovided by theSanFrancisco Planning Department wasfilteredusing yearbuilt datathatis provided by theCity andCounty of San Francisco Officeof theAssessor-Recorder. Theseyearbuilt datesarenot alwaysaccurate forreasonsthat include recent demolitions, inaccurate previous records, or prior additions and alterations thathave beenrecorded asanew“effectiveyear built.” Assuch, thereview of previous surveyand Planning Department historic resource determination findings was not comprehensive,but provided ahigh-level understanding of existing designatedresources and eligibility determinations.
Detailed building-specificresearchwas notconducted forthe properties discussed inthis document.If the architectand yearof construction forproperties thatare mentioned orillustrated inthe historic context statementwere notalreadyknown,the originalbuilding permits were requested electronicallyfromthe Department of Building Inspectionforconfirmation. Unless otherwise noted,SanFranciscobuildings,sites,and landscapes mentioned inthis reportare extantatthe time of writing.
Awindshield surveyof representative Late Modern,Postmodern,and New Modernproperties was conducted overseveraldays inthe summerand fallof 2023.Unless otherwise noted,photographs inthis documentwere takenbyPage &Turnbullduring these windshield surveys.
RecentPast&Considerations forResources Less than 50Years Old
This historic contextstatementconsiderspropertiesbuiltfrom1960to2000,a period whichis,atthe time of this writing,generallyconsidered the “recentpast”withinthe contextof historicpreservation. Fiftyyears is a common threshold forbeginningto considerpropertiesas potentially“age-eligible”historicresources.However, properties thatare less than50 years old maybe eligible forlisting inthe NationalRegisterof HistoricPlaces (NationalRegisterorNRHP),California Registerof HistoricalResources (California RegisterorCRHR),and/oras SanFranciscoCityLandmarks (Article 10),and eachregisterhas differentconsiderations.
Properties thathave achieved significance withinthe past50 years shallnotbe considered eligible forthe NationalRegister unless itcanbe demonstrated thattheyare of exceptional importance.According toNational RegisterBulletin 15,the conceptof exceptionalimportance “maybe applied tothe extraordinaryimportance of aneventortoanentire categoryof resources sofragile thatsurvivors of anyage are unusual.” 8 Inorderfora propertytobe evaluated underNationalRegisterCriteria ConsiderationG,there mustbe sufficienthistorical perspective todetermine thatthe propertyis exceptionallyimportant.Inaddition,the propertymustbe compared withotherrelated properties todetermine if the propertyqualifies as exceptionallyimportant. Propertieswhichhaveachievedsignificancewithin the past50yearscanalsobeeligible forthe NationalRegister if theyare anintegralpartof a districtwhichqualifies forthe NationalRegisterlisting.
The California Register has differentguidance forunderstanding resources thatare less than50 years old. According toCalifornia Office of HistoricPreservationTechnicalBulletin6,“Inordertounderstand the historic importance of a resource,sufficienttime musthave passed toobtaina scholarlyperspective onthe events or individuals associated withthe resource.Aresource less than50 years old maybe considered forlisting inthe California Registerif itcanbe demonstrated thatsufficienttime has passed tounderstand its historical importance.”9Inother words, the California Registerthreshold is lower thanthatof the exceptionalsignificance threshold of the NationalRegister, and requires only sufficient time and scholarly perspective toevaluate and considerproperties less than50 years old.
Article 10 of the SanFranciscoPlanning Code,whichaddresses the preservationof historicalarchitecturaland aestheticlandmarks,does notexplicitlystate anycriteria orconsiderations related toage-eligibilityforlocal landmarks.
8 National Park Service,“National RegisterBulletin Number 15:How toApply theNational RegisterCriteriaforEvaluation” (Washington, D.C.:National Park Service, 1995).
9 California Officeof Historic Preservation, “Technical AssistanceSeries#6 California RegisterandNational Register:AComparison” (Sacramento: California Officeof StatePublishing, 2011),3.
Bythe post-World WarIIperiod,Modernismwas the dominantarchitecturalstyle inAmericanurbancenters and was increasingly the norminresidentialconstruction and the designof civic,commercial,and institutional buildings inbothcities and suburbs.The “InternationalStyle”had beencodified byPhilip Johnsonand HenryRussellHitchcockintheir exhibitionandaccompanying publicationof the same name atthe Museumof Modern Art (MOMA)inNewYorkin1932 selectivelyemphasizingModernismthatwascharacterized bytautwhite stucco skins,geometricvolumes,flatroofs,and ribbonwindows and glass curtainwalls.The ModernMovement,which had grownoutof Europe and the Bauhaus (the Germanartschoolfounded byWalterGropius),flourished inthe UnitedStatesaftermanyof its leading lights were forced torelocate because of the war including Mies vander Rohe,WalterGropius, and MarcelBreueronthe EastCoast,and Richard Neutra and RudolphSchindleronthe WestCoast.While Le Corbusier perhaps the preeminentspokesmanand practitionerof the Modern Movement did notmove tothe United States,his theoryand influence loomed large overthe field of architecture, and urbanplanning principles articulated intexts including Towards a New Architecture (1923, translatedtoEnglishin1927)and The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning (1929),suchas the notionof a towerina park,had a profound effectoncityplanning and urbanrenewal.
Inthe 1950s,new high-rise towers were springing up inurbancenters following the modelof purist,glass curtain wallslabs withflatroofs suchas LeverHouse (1951,GordonBunshaftand Natalie de Blois of Skidmore, Owings &Merrill,New York)and the SeagramBuilding (1958, Mies vanderRohe and Philip Johnson). Bythe 1960s,Americancities were undergoing anunprecedented transformationas theywere able to utilize federal funding and the powers of eminentdomainthroughquasi-governmentalredevelopmentagencies toredevelop large swaths of historicurban fabricfornew highways,business districtmegablocks,and Modernisthousing complexes. The developments frequentlyripped throughexisting communities,oftenlong-standing African Americancommunities and othersocioeconomical disenfranchised communities.10 As tabula rasa Modernist planning principles were reshaping cities,Modernism particularlyinthe modelof Mies vanderRohe was becoming the dominantcorporate style inthe urban and suburbanlandscape.Increasinglyderivative design became the norm,tothe pointthatmanybegantofind the style,especiallyinlarge downtownhigh-rises and otherlarge civicprojects,tobe tooaustere,abstract,orevenbanal. The Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM),whichhad beenco-founded byLe Corbusierin1928 tospread the principles of the Modern Movement,disbanded in1959 bya contingentknownas Team10 thatincreasinglycritiqued the doctrinaire functionalism of orthodox Modernist architecture and urbanism.
Jane Jacobs,a journalistand activistliving inNew York’s Greenwichvillage,articulated a poignantcritique of urban renewaland Modernistplanning inherseminaltext, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961). Soon after,RobertVenturipublished Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1962)whichwentafterthe orthodoxy of purist,abstractModernism,and called for anexplorationof “both-and”inarchitecture,combining a hybrid of elements and forms including those drawnfromhistory. Venturiproclaimed,“less is a bore”in response toMies vanderRohe’s refrain“less is more.”11 Althoughinhis introductiontoVenturi’s book,Vincent Scully proclaimed that Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture was “the mostimportantwriting onthe making of architecture since Le Corbusier’s Vers une Architecture [Towards a New Architecture]of 1923”and the impactof the bookwas profound withinthe architecturalcommunity, therewas notyeta cleardirectioninterms
10 Foradetailed account of redevelopment inSan Francisco, refertothe San Francisco Redevelopment Agency HCS (inProgress)
11 Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (NewYork:The Museumof Modern Art,New York,1966),25.
of amovement,style,orform.12 Yet,formany,there was a sense thatthe ideologicalpromises of a bettersociety through architecture had notbeenfulfilled.
The period beginning inthe 1960s was one of increasing experimentation,and bythe 1970s there were many notable divergences withinModernistarchitecture,including clearerreactions againstit. EvenLe Corbusier the greatprogenitorof the ModernMovement beganexploring more expressive forms inconcrete,as exemplified byhis chapelinRonchamp,withits swooping and evocative roof (Fig. 2).Withinthe United States,worksuchas the Brutalist raw concrete of PaulRudolph,sweeping expressionistcurves of EeroSaarinen,and primordial muscular geometries of Louis Kahnwere looked toas new ways forward withinthe principles of Modernism. This periodof whathas retrospectivelybeendeemed “Late Modernism” inthe 1960s and 1970s included many strains of architectural design,including NewFormalism,Brutalism, andExpressionism,as wellas the High-Tech Structuralism and glass skin(‘slicktech’)architecture of SouthernCalifornia and Texas,the exploded NeoCorbusierexplorationofarchitects like PeterEisenmanand MichaelGraves,and earlyexplorations ofcollage and “cheapskate”materials byFrankGehry.13
Fig. 2. ChapelleNotreDamedu Haut(1954) by LeCorbusier in Ronchamp,Franceisan expressivechapelthatsignaled a shiftfrom orthodox Modernism andthe InternationalStyleby itsown main progenitor.Thebuilding hasbeen retrospectively identifiedasa sourcefor Postmodernism becauseof its visualqualitiesasa well of communication andmetaphor.
(Source:Flickr user Duncan Standridge.)
RobertVenturi and Charles Moore,whobothstudied underKahn,represented a new generationof architects thatpushed evenfurtherbeyond Modernismtointroduce historicaland vernacularreferences, the lowbrow and kitsch,as wellas complexityof formand interiorspace intotheirarchitecture. Projects byRobertVenturi, including the Guild House (1963)and Vanna VenturiHouse (1964),bothinPhiladelphia,are among the earliest examples of architecturalPostmodernism,especiallyas characterized byhistoricalreference and irony (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) Otherearlyexperimentations and precursors of Postmodernismthatdrew more onvernacularand regionalsourcesinclude the work ofCharles Moore asinhis OrindaHouse (1962)inthe EastBay, and projects at The SeaRanchonthe Sonoma coastbyMoore,Lyndon, Turnbull&Whitaker(MLTW)andJosephEsherickin1965 (Fig.5andFig.126).Moore’sPiazzad’Italia(1978)inNewOrleans would laterdemonstrate the Classiciststrainof Postmodernism, withplayfuland colorfulreferences toClassicalarchitecture.
12 Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 11.
Fig. 5. Orinda House(1962) by Charles Moorein theEastBay featuredtwo centralaediculae(or temple-likeinterior spaces,supportedby columns) which servedto definetheotherwiseopen living andbedroom spaces.Thesimple squarevolumehadsliding barn doorsto dissolvethewallsandbarriersto the exterior.TheOrinda House,since effectivelydemolished,wasanimportant precedentandprecursor to ThirdBay Tradition andPostmodern residential architecture.
(Source:CharlesMooreFoundation).
Itwas notuntil the 1970s,however,that architecturalPostmodernismwas named and theorized.Charles Jencks produced a seminaltext, The Language of Post-Modernism (1977),thatputa name tothe new architecture that was reacting toand diverging fromModernism.Jencks would alsohelp todefine the “Late Modern”incontrast toPostmodernism, while acknowledgingthe distinctions sometimesas fluid and matters of degrees,inhis book Late-Modern Architecture (1980) (Fig. 6).Writings byRobertA.M.Stern,PaoloPortoghesi,and HeinrichKlotz helped tofurtherdefine architecturalPostmodernism,whichbythe 1980s was a dominantmode albeita pluralist one inAmerican architecture as indicated bythe projects gracing covers of architecturalperiodicals and winning awards. In1979,Philip Johnson whohad defined and codified the InternationalStyle proved willing toshiftwithstylistic trends and was onthe coverof TIMEMagazine,holding a modelof the soon-to-bebuiltAT&TBuilding (550 MadisonAvenue, New YorkCity, 1984),whichhas become aniconof Postmodernism withits top thatresembled aneighteenthcentury Chippendale cabinet(Fig. 7).The firstVenice Biennale of architecture, hosted in1980,was a watershed momentforarchitecturalPostmodernism,bringing the new architecture toa mass publicaudience firstinVenice,thentraveling toParis,and toFortMasonCenterinSan
Franciscoin 1982.The exhibitiontitled “The Presence of the Past”emphasized a Postmodernismthatdrew on historical, particularly Classical,references and played withscale,color,irony,and humor.
Fig.6.OneofCharlesJencks’smanyiterationsonanevolutionarytree,inthis caseshowing LateModernism andPostmodernism side-by-side.Originally publishedin CharlesJencks,“Battleof theLabels:Late-Modern v Postmodern,” A.D. News- Architectural Design News Supplement (July 1981),3.
(Source: CharlesMooreFoundation).
(Source: DavidShankbone,2007, cropped,Wikipedia.)
SanFranciscosaw its owndivergences fromand reactions toModernism,along similarlines as the broader national and internationalcritique, butuniquelyinformedbyspecificlocalevents and concerns,including urban renewal,fears of the Manhattanizationof the city’s skyline,burgeoning historicpreservationand environmental movements,and newlyimplemented urbanplanning principles,whichare discussed ingreaterdetailinthe following section, HistoricContext:SanFranciscointhe Late 20th Century Inthe 1970s, architecture shifted into its LateModernphase,withicons suchas Transamerica Pyramid (600 MontgomeryStreet, 1972,WilliamPereira &Associates)and the EmbarcaderoCenter(1-5 EmbarcaderoCenter, 1971-81,JohnPortman&Associates)
informing muchof the publicdebate abouthow the cityshould lookand grow.Explorations withinLate Modernismincluded Brutalismand New Formalism,as wellas the Third BayTradition,whichdeveloped outof The Sea Ranchand explorations of vernacular forms.
Bythe 1980s,particularlyafterthe adoptionof SanFrancisco’s 1985 DowntownPlan,architectural Postmodernism took hold,especiallyincorporate high-rise construction, butalsofound eclecticand highly contextual and regionalexpressions inthe residentialworkof architects like DanielSolomon,Donald MacDonald,and JeremyKotas.Generallyspeaking,Postmodernism inSanFranciscowas more contextualand regionalinits expressions,particularlyinresidentialarchitecture whichdrew ona long traditionof regional eclecticism,whencompared tothe flamboyant,dissonantcollage and proto-Deconstructivistworks coming out of the Los Angeles Schoolof Postmodernism atthe time.
Fig. 7. AT&T Building (550Madison Avenue,1984) by Johnson & Burgee in Manhattan,NewYorkCity,NY
Postmodernism, however,rana fairlybrief course inSanFrancisco,withmanyarchitects finding itsuperficial, tired,and pastiche,Bythe early1990s,theywere seeking a new wayforward indesignthrougha returntothe principles of Modernismand more minimalistorpost-industrial aestheticwithout the overthistorical references and applied ornamentationof Postmodernism.The shift,signaled bythe “Inthe Spiritof Modernism”exhibition atSFMOMAin1991,was led bya new generationof localarchitects,including JimJennings,TannerLeddy MaytumStacy,WilliamStout,and StanleySaitowitz,and the New Modernistarchitecture continued toevolve in practice and expressionintothe twenty-firstcenturyand presentday.
Additionalcontexts on Late Modernism,Postmodernism,and New Modernism,withspecificreference totheir localexpressions inSanFrancisco,are provided inthe relevantTheme and Sub-Theme sections of this document.
CHANGESWITHINPROFESSIONALPRACTICE&EDUCATION
Inthe late twentiethcentury,the architecture professionexperienced a numberof broad nationaltrends and new technologicalinnovations thatchanged the practice,manyof whichalsoimpacted allied fields like landscapearchitecture andplanning.Notably,following the passageofthe CivilRights Actof 1964 and Title IX of the EducationAmendments of 1972, more womenand racialand ethnicminorityindividuals entered architectural educationand subsequently,architecturalpractice,althoughsignificant workremained (and still remains)tobe done todiversifythe profession. Formore informationonthe demographicshifts inBayArea professionalpractice,refertoAppendix A.
This period alsosaw the growthand consolidationof a few majorfirms nationally suchas SOM,HOK,and Gensler making itchallenging forsmallfirms tocompete,especiallyduring periods of inflationand recession, as wellas the rise of the ‘starchitect.’The increasing affordabilityand convenience of computers alsochanged architectural practiceinsofaras itallowedformore complexanalysisandincreasedspecialization,andof course, changed approaches todrafting and designwiththe introductionof ComputerAided Design(CAD)software.
GrowthofFirms & Rise ofthe Starchitect
While the proliferationofconstruction inthe immediatepost-World WarII periodprovidedample opportunityfor young architects,the recessions inthe 1970s,‘80s,and ‘90s;rising costs of land,construction,and labor; decreasing availabilityof buildable sites;and increasing regulationand review allcontributed toa more challenging environment forarchitects and designers inthe late twentiethcentury.Inmanycases,largerfirms were able tobe more competitive and efficient,and provide more specializationand technicalanalysis.During this period,architecture firms like Skidmore,Owings &Merrill(SOM);Hellmuth,Obata &Kassabaum(HOK);and Gensler,aswellassomelandscape architecture firms suchas SWAGroup (whichevolved outof Sasaki,Walker& Associates),EDAW (whichevolved from Eckbo,Dean,Austinand Williams)grew muchlarger.14 SOM,John Portman &Associates,and WeltonBecketAssociates dominated downtownhigh-rise constructionthroughthe 1980s.15 Onthe otherhand,somesmallerfirms wereabletofind professionalnichesin residentialdesign,aswell as institutional designforrecreational,educational,and othermunicipalsites.
14 LawrenceHalprin Associatesalso grewtoover 60 employees, until Halprin closed the officetoopen amuch smaller practice in themid-1970s.
Bythe 1990s,however,large culturaland institutionalprojects were oftenbeing giventobig-name architects withnational, oreveninternational, cachet signaling the beginning of the “starchitect”phenomenon.Even before the “BilbaoEffect”was theorized based onFrankGehry’s GuggenheimMuseumBilbao(1997) inwhich iconic architecture is employed totransformanurbanenvironment and bolsterthe economyand tourism the concept of starchitecture was being developed. The Centre Pompidou(Paris,1977,RenzoPiano&Richard Rogers)was anearlyexample of this strategy,and as earlyas 1987,a ChicagoTribune article defined the phenomenon as“Celebritystyle architects starchitects whose hands atthe drawing board virtuallyguarantee a distinctive,eye-catching,evenwhimsicalcreationthatwillenhance the building’s marketability.”16 While the AIA Gold Medal,one of the highesthonors inAmericanarchitecture,goes backtothe early1900s,the prestigious international PritzkerPrize whichwas firstawarded toPhilip Johnsonin1979 has furtherheightened the publicprominence of starchitects.Although the FinancialDistrict has its share of office skyscrapers designed by firms based outside of SanFrancisco,the starchitectphenomenonis perhaps mostapparentatYerba Buena Center.The area,controlled bythe SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency,wentthroughmanymasterplanning iterations including plansbylocal architects suchasBeverlyWillis over decadesbefore being largelybuiltout inthe 1990s.Yerba Buena Center,whichhas a concentrationof arts and culturalinstitutions designed by starchitects includes the originalSanFrancisco Museumof ModernArt byMarioBotta (1513rd Street,1995)witha lateradditionby Snøhetta (2016);the Yerba Buena Centerforthe Arts byPritzkerPrize-winnerFumihikoMaki (701MissionStreet,1993);theYerbaBuena CenterTheater(700HowardStreet,1993)byJames Polshek;and the ContemporaryJewishMuseum(736 MissionStreet, 2008)byDanielLibeskind.17
Bay Area DesignEducation
Locally,the architecture field was alsoheavilyinfluenced bythe pedagogyof localeducationalinstitutions.One significantchangewas in1959,whenthe College of EnvironmentalDesign(CED)was created atthe Universityof California,Berkeley(UCBerkeley).The brainchild of WilliamWursterand Catherine BauerWurster,whocasta long shadow atUCBerkeley,the programwas the firstinthe countrytojointhe disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture,and planning inone college.18 CEDmoved intoits new home now knownas Bauer WursterHall in 1964,aniconicworkof Brutalistarchitecture.During the late twentiethcentury,architecture faculty included manynotable Modernists,including Claude Stoller,Gerald McCue,and Donald Olsen,as well manyof the leading architects of Second and Third BayTraditions of regionalarchitecture,suchas Donlyn Lyndon,JosephEsherick,and Charles Moore.19 Avanguard alsoarrived onthe facultywithnew ideas about architecture, planning,urbanism,and sustainability,including Christopher Alexander,SimvanderRyn,and DanielSolomon.20 While the CEDprogramwas expanding and diversifying,Stanford Universityphased outits undergraduate architecture programbetween1975 and 1977,and then-directorof the programRobert
16 Chicago Tribune, January18,1987,citedin “Starchitect,” Oxford English Dictionary, accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/starchitect_n?tl=true
17 Thestarchitect phenomenon isalso apparent inother civic andcultural buildings around thecity, some of which date toafter2000,including theSan Francisco Public Library(1996)byJamesIngoFreedof PeiCobb Freed,theAsianArtMuseum addition (2003) byGaeAulenti, theFederalBuilding (2006)byThom Mayneof Morphosis, theDeYoung Museum (2005) byHerzog& deMeuron, and theCalifornia Academy of Sciences (2008) byRenzo Piano. Thom Mayne, Herzog & deMeuron, andRenzo Piano areallPritzker Prizewinners.
18 “About CED,” University of California, BerkeleyCollegeof Environmental Design, accessed online February13,2024, https://ced.berkeley.edu/about-ced
19 “Faculty of theSchool of Architecture/College of Environmental Design,” in Design on the Edge: A Century of Teaching Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, 1903-2003,eds.WaverlyLowell,ElizabethByrne,and BetsyFrederick-Rothwell (Berkeley:Collegeof Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley,2009),303-4.
20 Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language (1977) waswidelyinfluential both in andoutside the architecture profession. Thebook outlined patternsin theformaproblem statement,illustrated discussion of theproblem, and asolution toempower userstobuild and problem-solve through designon their own.The ideasin A Pattern Language arecited fromNewUrbanists to earlysoftwaredesigners.
Mittelstadtwas unable topersuade the universitytoestablisha graduate programtocomplimentthe undergraduate program.21
Fig.8.Theinterior“nave”ofthemain CCA Montgomery Campusbuildingat11118th Street,adaptedfrom a 1951 SOM-designedGreyhoundBusmaintenancefacility by Tanner Leddy Maytum Stacy in 1998.
Inthe 1980s,the California College of Arts and Crafts (CCAC,now knownas California College of the Arts orCCA) challenged CEDas the centerof avant-garde architecturaleducationinthe BayArea.CogswellCollege (now Universityof Silicon Valley),a historicSanFranciscocollege,was undergoing restructuring and relocated to Cupertinotobe closertothe hubs of computertechnologyinnovation inSilicon Valley.CCApurchased Cogswell College’s architecture programand merged itwithits owninteriorarchitecture program.The new CCAprogram moved intoa leased formerindustrialbuilding at1700 17th Streetin1987,marking the firststep inwhatwould eventuallybe a fullrelocationof the schoolfromits historic Oakland campus toSanFranciscoin2022.22 In199698,architects TannerLeddyMaytumStacyconverted a formerGreyhound Bus maintenance facilityat1111 8th StreetinPotrero Hill(originally designed bySOM in1951)as the new home forthe CCAdesignand architecture programs (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9).Underthe leadership of directorDavid Meckel,the architecture programatCCA became accredited bythe time the firstclass graduated and grew intoaninfluentialforce withinBayArea architecture. Manyof the faculty members includingJim Jennings,PaulettTaggart,Stephanie Felch,and David Ogorzalekof Praxis,and others and graduates were leading localpractitioners of Modernisminthe late twentiethcentury.23
21 “Stanford scrapping programin architecture after’77,” Palo Alto Times,June28,1975.Undergraduatearchitecture waslaterreintroduced atStanford University in theengineering school, c. early2000s.
22 TheAlbert Roller-designed building at1700 17th StreetwasrenovatedforCCAbyGensler & Associates. Referto:“About,” California Collegeof theArts, accessed online February13,2024,https://www.cca.edu/about/#section-history; andJohn Chase,“Architecture school toopen inThe City,” San Francisco Examiner,July 8,1985.
23 Oralinterviewin 2023 betweenauthorand architect David Gill, who received his architecture degreeatCCA,then latertaughtatCCA.
Fig. 9. Exterior viewof main CCA Montgomery Campus building (11118th Street).
HandDrawing versus ComputerAidedDesign
Earlyuse of computers forcomplex environmentaland site analysis was occurring as earlyas the 1970s.UC Berkeleystudents were using computergeographicinformationsystems (GIS) arguablyone of the first instances todigitize and analyze 60 layers of data forthe Tahoe RegionalPlanning Agencyinthe early1970s, andarchitect BeverlyWillis’s firmwasdevelopingits pioneering proprietarysiteanalysis software,Computerized ApproachtoResidentialLand Analysis (CARLA),in1972.24 However,itwas notuntilthe 1980s thatcommercially available software programs,whichare now standard issue fordesignfirms,were launched,including AutoCAD (1982),MicrosoftWord (1983),Adobe Photoshop (1990).25 Inthe 1980s,students were stillprimarilylearning hand-drafting techniques,butbythe 1990s,AutoCADwas becoming more widelyadopted byarchitecture and engineering firms.26 Computing tools allowed firms tobecome more efficientand forpractitioners tobecome increasinglyspecialized intheirexpertise.
However,some architects have argued that“something is lostwhenthey[students and architects]draw onlyon the computer”and thathand drawing remains vitaltothe practice of design.27 Inthe BayArea,the 1990s were rich withexpressive hand drawing inboth“paperarchitecture”and renderings forsoon-to-be-builtprojects. Architects like Batey&Mackand Wes Jones,inparticular,were knownfortheirunique rendering styles,and the locally published Pamphlet Architecture was illustrated primarilywithblackand white drawings bythe likes of Zaha Hadid and Lebbeus Woods (Fig.10).28
24 “CARLA,” Beverly Willis Archive, accessedonline, February13,2024, https://beverlywillis.com/technology/carla/; andRobert Twiss, “Perspectives on the Development of Environmental Planning inthe department: 1960-1994,in Landscape at Berkeley: The First 100 Years,eds.WaverlyB.Lowell,Carrie LeahMcDade,and Elizabeth Douthitt Byrne (Berkeley:Collegeof Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley,2013),75.
26 “TheEvolution of CADforEngineering andArchitectural Technicians,” Digital School, accessed online February13,2024, https://www.digitalschool.ca/the-evolution-of-cad-for-engineering-and-architectural-technicians/
27 Michael Graves, “Architecture andtheLostArt of Drawing,” The New York Times,September1,2012.
28 LosAngeles-based Ming FungandCraigHodgetts of Hodgetts+ Fungalso contributed compelling, fantastical drawings of SanFrancisco and theBay Bridgeto the“Visionary SanFrancisco” exhibition atSFMOMAin1990 toillustrate William Gibson’s short story“Skinners Room.” William Gibson, “Skinner’sRoom” in Visionary San Francisco, ed Paolo Polledri (SanFrancisco: SanFrancisco Museum of Art, 1990),152-65.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
ARCHITECTURALCRITICISM,PUBLICATIONS&EXHIBITIONS
Local Architectural Criticism
The primarysource of localarchitecture criticism during the late twentiethcenturywas inlocalnewspapers. Allan Temkowas the architecture critic atthe San Francisco Chronicle from1961 to1993 a period of significant change inthe urbanbuiltenvironment and architecturalstyle inSanFrancisco.29 While the San Francisco Chronicle was notas progressive as publications suchas the San Francisco Bay Guardian,Temkowas noted for his sharpcriticism of urbanrenewal,freewayconstruction, andwhatheperceivedastheoverreachesof planners inmatters of individualbuilding design,and forhis defense of the urbandesignand qualityof SanFrancisco.
Localarchitectural historian and journalist SallyWoodbridge was alsoa significantlocalvoice,serving as a longtime correspondentfor Progressive Architecture,curating and editing a series of BayArea architecture guidebooks,and editing the seminaltextonBayTraditionArchitecture, Bay Area Houses (1976,rev.1988).30
Architecture Publications & Galleries
Although not locally focused,nationaltradeandshelterpublications shaped,oratleastreflected,the trends and conversations inthe architectural profession. Architectural Forum ceased publicationinearly1974,and Arts & Architecture endeditsrunin 1967,beforebeingbrieflyrevivedas a quarterlymagazine from1981 to1985.Trade publications like Architectural Record, AIA Journal (laterknownas Architecture),and Landscape Architecture Magazine continued torun through the end of the twentiethcentury,as did more widelypopularshelter magazines like Sunset Magazine and Better Homes & Gardens.InadditiontoAIAnationaland chapterawards programs, Architectural Record continued its “Record Houses”awards program.31 Progressive Architecture (P/A), considered a more avant-garde publication,alsorananawards program,whichwas highlycoveted inthe profession.32
Inadditiontonational publications,there were severalnotable architecture publications thatwere published in SanFrancisco,along withseveralinfluentialbookstores,galleries,and localorganizations.WilliamStout Architectural Books opened atits currentlocationat840 MontgomeryStreetin1984 finding a long-termhome afterits startinWilliam“Bill”Stout’s apartment in1974,and thena locationonOsgood Place.33 Inadditionto new books,Stoutwas collecting and selling used and out-of-printbooks,as wellas avant-garde periodicals. There were numerous architecture firms inthe area eitherinJacksonSquare orwithinwalking distance inthe FinancialDistrict which supported a smallbutvitalnetworkof architecture-related endeavors.Susie Coliver opened ARCH,a drafting and architecturalsupplystore,at43 Osgood Place in1978, and DanFriedlander
29 TemkoreceivedaPulitzer Prize forCriticism in 1990.Acollection of his essayswaspublished as No Way to Build a Ballpark: And Other Irreverent Essays on Architecture (SanFrancisco: Chronicle Books,1993).
30 John Parman,“Remembering Sally Woodbridge,” Berkeleyside,May 29,2020,accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.berkeleyside.org/2020/05/29/remembering-sally-byrne-woodbridge
31 Several housesand apartments inSan Francisco were“Record Houses” between1970 and2000, including: Studio Apartments by Whisler/Patriin 1970; theWaldman House byBull Field Volkmann Stockwell andFriendship Village byBulkley and Sazevich in 1972;theCoplans Residence (19Belgrave Avenue) byPatricia Coplans in1973;Union StreetApartments by PetersClayberg& Caulfield in 1975;747 NorthPoint Townhouses by Donald MacDonald in1980;the Corson-Heinser Live/Work Building by Tanner LeddyMaytum Stacyin 1992;andtheOliverResidence byJimJennings in 1998.
32 P/AAwardsgiven to SanFrancisco projects between1970 and2000 include awardsorcitations toaproposal forPacific Medical Center(thebuilding at 2333 BuchananStreetwaslaterconstructed with adifferentdesign) in 1972;TelegraphTerracebyBARin 1980;388 MarketStreetbySOMin1983;999 Brannan byTanner & DeVinein 1984;theSanFrancisco Downtown Plan in 1986;and18th & ArkansasTownhouses andLoftsby David Bakerin1995.
33 Stout startedselling books out of hisapartment at1218 MontgomeryStreet,which heshared witharchitect StevenHoll. Originally, the storewascalled “Off Centre” butwasrenamedbythelate1970s.Inthe1970sStoutwasstill practicing architecture and had anofficeon OsgoodPlace thathe shared with JimJenningsand PeterVanDine.By 1992,Stouthadclosed hisarchitectural officeand focused only on thebookstore and publishing. DungNgo, “Shelf Life,” Kazam Magazine,EamesInstitute, March2023,accessed online February13,2024,https://www.eamesinstitute.org/kazammagazine/william-stout-architectural-books/
opened modernfurniture store Limn 34 MarkMackand Andrew Bateyrented a nearbyoffice at25 Osgood Place where theyco-founded WesternAdditioninc.1976-77,whichwas “anorganizationdevoted tofine architecture.”35 The group hosted architecture lecture series and conversations,outof which the publication Archetype was formed shortlythereafter.
Where Oppositions was a more EastCoast-centricavant-garde architecture publication, Archetype was a distinctly WestCoastpublication,butwithglobalinterests indisciplines ranging fromarchitecture to photographyand industrialdesign,as wellas historyand theory.The editorialteamincluded Bateyand Mack withHenryBowles,KurtForster,and Diane Ghirardo,and was printed approximatelyquarterlyfrom1979 to 1983.Theeditorialinthe first issuenoted,“One ofthe objectivesfora voice fromthe westshould be toeradicate the fearof communicationwiththe architectural community on the EastCoastand inEurope,”demonstrating theirinterest inrectifying the image of SanFranciscoand the WestCoastas isolated,provincial,and/orirrelevant tothe national and globalconversationaboutartand culture.36
Stout alsostarted publishing a series witharchitectStevenHoll(whohad moved toNew Yorkin1977)called Pamphlet Architecture in1978,whichis stillrunning despite its verylimited distributioninNew Yorkand San Franciscoearlyon.Eachissue of the highlyexperimentaland theoreticalpublication was written,designed,and illustrated byemerging architects manyof whomlaterproved tobe verywell-knownand influential,including Zaha Hadid,Lebbeus Woods,StevenHoll,and MarkMack.The issues oftenfeatured workbythe issue’s author, and the projects were “paperarchitecture”(eitherunbuiltorspeculative).The series was and has beenhighly influential amongsta youngergenerationof architects,especiallyforthose inthe late 1970s through1990s who were interested innew architecture outside of the Postmodernmainstream(whichdominated nationaltrade publications intothe early1990s),including Deconstructivism,HighTechStructuralism, and freshapproaches to Modernism.37 Stoutalsostarted publishing books underthe “WilliamStoutPublishers”imprintinthe 1990s, including monographs onnotable BayArea architects.38
Inthe late 1980s,architectMarkHorton starteda non-profit gallerycalled “Artand Architecture ExhibitionSpace,” betterknownbythe acronym2AES,at340 BryantStreet. Hortonwas eventuallyjoined by architectWestJones whointurn involved his partneratthe time,architectPeterPfau.The group was alsojoined byarchitectFrank Wong and landscape architectand artistKarla Dakin,whoranthe gallery.39The galleryexhibited visionaryand experimentalwork,oftenpaperarchitecture, byavant-gardearchitectsand hosted events like “Café Talks”atthe
36 “Postmodernist Publishing Architecture in thelate1970’s,” NoeverDesign,accessed online February13,2024, http://www.noever-design.com/de-cafeaud.html
37 Amelia Taylor-Hochberg, “Inside Pamphlet: How oneof the mostenduring experimental architecture publications got itsstart,” Archinect, February 12, 2016,accessedonline February13,2024,https://archinect.com/features/article/147814975/inside-pamphlet-how-one-of-the-most-enduringexperimental-architecture-publications-got-its-start; StevenHoll andWilliam Stout, Pamphlet Architecture 1-10 (NewYork:Princeton Architectural Press, 1998).
38 Elizabeth Snowden, “TorchPassed:The EamesInstitute’s acquisition of William Stout’s bookstore preservesacultural icon,” TheArchitect’s Newspaper, February27,2023,accessedonline February13,2024,https://www.archpaper.com/2023/02/eames-institutes-acquisition-william-stout-bookstorepreserves-cultural-icon/
39 David Gill, email messagetoHannah Simonson, July 23,2024.
BrainwashCafe toshowcase the workof young architects inthe BayArea.40 The workexhibited at2AESwas a departure fromPostmodernism and canbe understood as partof a shifting interestwithinthe architecture professiontofinda newwayforward.The title of the 2AESgallerywas alsonotable insofaras ittied togetherthe realms of artand architecture this kind of interdisciplinaryconversationand mutualinspirationwas also inherent inthe projectof Archetype.The cross-pollinationwas especiallyimportantinthe 1980s and 1990s as architects soughtnew influences, and manyarchitects experimented infine artand otherpracticaldesign (furniture, exhibitions,etc.)as commissions foryoung architects were relativelyscarce.
Fig. 11. Smithsonian Falls, Descending a Staircase for P.K. (1987) by DavidIreland,installedattheSFAIaddition by PaffardKeatinge-Clay.
(Source:Gallery asPlace,San Francisco ArtInstitute,1987. Simo Neri,photographer.)
(Source:TsujimotoandWortz, David Ireland: A Decade Documented, 1978-1988, 32.)
David Ireland was a majornexus forsuchinterdisciplinarycollaboration,as were CCA,SFAI,and the Headlands CenterfortheArts inMarin.Ireland,whotreatedhis ownhome at500CappStreetinthe MissionDistrict asa kind of conceptual artpiece bytaking analmostarcheologicalapproachtoits preservationand maintenance, engaged deeplywitharchitecture inhis practice including pieces suchas Smithsonian Falls, Descending a Staircase for P.K. (1987),whichwas installed inthe stairwellof the Paffard Keatinge-Clay-designed Brutalist additiontoSFAIand atthe Headlands Centerforthe Arts (HCA) (Fig. 11).AtHCA,Ireland notonlyundertooka numberof “maintenance action”conceptual artprojects toadaptivelyreuse the formermilitarybuildings,but alsocollaborated witharchitectMarkMackonthe furniture thatis still used.Bruce Tomb,whopreviously worked forBatey&Mackand onArchetype,started aninterdisciplinaryartand architecture partnership withJohn
40 TheCaféTalksseriesin 1992was“seriesof eveningpresentationsby aloose collection of emergingSanFrancisco-based architects anddesigners.” The work of theparticipants (Yung-Ho Chang,TedMahi,Doug Wittnebel, Michael Bell, AnneFougeron, Louis Schump, CharlesWenzlau, Whitney Sander, Praxis Architects, David Gadarian, JohnClagett,Daniel W. Pietra,Group 27-9,SarahWillmer, and ByronKuth/Liz Ranieri) waspublished in abrochure “C1CA/2AES:CaféTalks” (1992).Thebrochureobserves“onefinds within this group little influence fromany historical BayTradition, nor much engagementinthe specific typological realities of SanFrancisco or itsenvirons. No doubt, this must beascribed primarily totheratherplace-less, mobile conditions of contemporary life.Butit mayalso reflectthefact that, totheextentthatthe city seemslargelybuilt, and thatnewconstruction is severely constrained bythe guardians of thatcontext, San Francisco seemstoofferlittleincentive forinnovative or challenging public architecture.”
Information about 2AESwasgatheredfromanoral interviewwith architect David Gill, whoworkedforMark Horton, and digital copy of theCaféTalks brochure courtesy of David Gill.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
Randolphcalled InterimOffice Of Architecture (IOOA),whichinstalled The Latrine (1998) a useable sculpture at HCA.In1983,AnnHatchalsostartedthe Capp StreetProject a long-running artistresidencyprogram outof 65 CappStreet,anearlyexample of a building withminimalistNew Modernarchitecture designed byDavid Ireland in1981 (Fig. 12).41
Architecture Exhibitions
The shiftfromLate ModernismtoPostModernismtoNew Modernismcould alsobe seeninlargerarchitecture exhibitions putonbetween1970 and 2000.Inadditiontoseveralsmallershows highlighting new workbya specificarchitectora single project,majorexhibitions included:“AView of California Architecture:1960-1976” (1976)atthe SanFranciscoMuseumof ModernArt(SFMOMA);“The Presence of the Past”(1982)atFortMason Center;“California Counterpoint:New WestCoastArchitecture”(1982)puton bythe Institute forArchitecture and UrbanStudies (IAUS)and SanFranciscoArtInstitute (SFAI)inNew York;“Clos Pegas DesignCompetition” (1985)atSFMOMA;“VisionarySanFrancisco”(1990)atSFMOMA;and “Inthe Spiritof Modernism”(1991)at SFMOMA.42
In1976,SFMOMAexhibited “AView of California Architecture:1960-1976,”whichdemonstrated the varietyof styles and approaches being utilized byCalifornia architects fromBrutalismto MiesianminimalismtoBayArea regionalstyles tovarious historical revivalisms toexperimentationinnew buildings systems like mirrorglass. While featuring severalBayArea architects including EHDD,Charles WarrenCallister,MarioCiampi,FisherFriedmanAssociates,WilliamTurnbull,and RobertMittelstadt the exhibitioncatalog was heavilyfocused on Southern California architecture and architects suchas CesarPelli,DMJM,and FrankGehry;the onlySan Franciscoprojects includedwerethe SFSU StudentCenter(1600HollowayAvenue,1969-75)byPaffardKeatingeClay,TransamericaPyramid (600 MontgomeryStreet,1972) byWilliamPereira &Associates,Coplans Residence (19 Belgrave Avenue,1973) byBurger&Coplans,and BellairDuplex (30 BellairPlace,1973) byDanielSolomon. David Gebhard argued inhis catalog essaythatwhile “mild historicismhas neverof course leftthe California scene[…]sincethe early1970stherehasbeenarashof evenmore blatanthistoricism,”foreshadowing the more fullemergence and dominance of Postmodernismtocome.43 The exhibition“Transformations inModern Architecture,” curated byArthurDrexleratthe Museumof ModernArtinNew Yorkin1979,alsoshowcased the manydivergences inarchitecture overthe course of the late 1960s and 1970s.44
The arrivalof Postmodernism onthe architectural scene inSanFranciscowas marked bythe restaging of the “The Presenceofthe Past” exhibitionfromthe 1980VeniceBiennale;the exhibitionwasshippedtoSanFrancisco and reinstalled atFortMasonCenterin1982 (Fig. 14).Curated byPaoloPortoghesi,“The Presence of the Past,” was the firstseparate architecture exhibitionatthe Venice Biennale,and featured as its centerpiece a “new street”(Strada Novissima) installed inanold rope factorywith20 facades designed bythe architecturalavantgarde made withstage-setmaterials suchas Styrofoam,chipboard,canvas,and paint;otherelements of the architecture biennale included a floating theater(Teatro del Mondo)byAldoRossiand a galleryof workby43
41 In 1989,theCappStreetProject moved to theAVTAuto Garageat270 14th Street,andthenmoved into theWattisInstitute forContemporary Artsin 1998, which laterbecame partof CCA. Referto:“About CSP,” CappStreetProject Archive (CSPA), archived from theoriginal on September 21,2017 viathe Wayback Machine, accessed February13,2024,https://web.archive.org/web/20170921095256/http://libraries-archive.cca.edu/capp/aboutcsp.html; KarenTsujimoto and Melinda Wortz, David Ireland: A Decade Documented, 1978-1988 (SantaCruz:Universityof California,1988);andAlanHess, Hyperwest: American Residential Architecture ontheEdge(NewYork: Whitney Libraryof Design, 1996).
42 Notable architect retrospectives atSFMOMAincluded “LawrenceHalprin: ChangingPlaces” (1986),“AnEverydayModernism: TheHouses of William Wurster” (1995).
43 David Gebhard, “A View” in A View of California Architecture: 1960-1976 (SanFrancisco:SanFranciscoMuseum of Modern Art, 1976),12.
44 Arthur Drexler, Transformations in Modern Architecture (NewYork: Museum of Modern Art, distributed by NewYork Graphic Society, 1979).
additionalarchitects.Ironically, Portoghesiintentionally chose a name forthe exhibitionthatdid notinclude the term“postmodernism”because he alreadysensed thatarchitecturalmovementwas being restricted or pigeonholed.45 However,the 1980 Venice Biennale exhibitionwas heralded as doing forPostmodernismwhat the 1932 “ModernArchitecture:InternationalExhibition”atMOMA inNew York, curated byHenry-Russell Hitchcock,did forthe International Style and ModernMovement.46 And,infact,like the InternationalStyle exhibitionatMOMA,the 1980 Venice Biennale presented a highlycurated and specifictype of Postmodernism as withthe ModernMovement,whichinfact had manyvariations beyond the white stuccobox,Postmodernism alsohad manyvariations beyond largelyClassicistfacades atthe Venice Biennale.
SanFranciscoadvertising executive JosephWienerand his wife,publicistVirginia Westover,visited the Venice Biennale in1980 and had the idea tobring ittoSanFrancisco.Afterthe exhibitiontraveled toParis,picking up twoadditionalfacades,ittraveled byboattoSanFranciscotobe installed inone of the warehouse piers atFort MasonCenter,onlya few years afterthe site was turned overfromthe military.Forunspecified reasons,Robert Venturiand DeniseScottBrowndroppedoutof the exhibitionbythe time itarrived inSanFrancisco,and instead a “shrine toPhilip Johnson”was installed inrecognition of his interestin“historical forms”and “after-Modern” architecture. The1982FortMasonCenterexhibitionalsoincludedfouradditionalfacadesbyBayArea architects, including facades byBatey&Mack,WilliamTurnbull,the SanFranciscooffice of SOM,and Daniel Solomon(Fig. 13).47 SOM’s contribution byJared Carlin,MichaelChow,MarcGoldstein,and Richard Tobias of the SanFrancisco office was a punonthe “curtainwall”forwhichthe firm’s manyModernistskyscraperdesigns were noted,but alsosignaled the firm’s “eagerness tobe counted among the post-modernists.”
48 Alsoadded were anentrygate byCrosby,Thornton&Marshall,a Sponsors’PavilionbyThomas GordonSmith,and anItalianfood court designed byBatey&Mack,whowere alsoresponsible forthe overallexhibitiondesignatFortMasonCenter.
Fig.13.FournewfacadesattheFortMasonCenterinstallationofthe Strada Novissima by Bay Area architects.From leftto right:Batey & Mack,DanielSolomon, SOM,andWilliam Turnbull.
45 Paolo Portoghesi, “TheEndof Prohibitionism,” in Architecture 1980: The Presence of the Past the Past Venice Biennale (NewYork:Rizzoli,1980),9.
46 Paul Goldberger, “Strolling Along aPost-Modern ‘Street’fromVenice,” The New York Times,June20,1982.
47 Work by Batey& Mack andWilliam Turnbull had beenincluded inthegallery exhibition atthe1980 VeniceBiennale,but thefirms did nothave facades in theoriginal Strada Novissima
48 Paul Goldberger, “Strolling Along aPost-Modern ‘Street’fromVenice,” The New York Times,June20,1982,inGoldberger, On The Rise: Architecture and Design in A Postmodern Age (NewYork:The NewYork Times BooksCo.,Inc., 1983):33-35.
Fig. 14. Poster for “ThePresenceof the Past”exhibitionatFort Mason Center in 1982.
(Source:William Stout ArchitecturalBooks.)
Anentire issue of Archetype inSpring 1982,“The Presence of the Past,”was dedicated tothe installationof the VeniceBiennale exhibitioninFortMason.49 Whilecelebratingthe exhibition,the “fun”and“lessisa bore”attitude of Postmodernism, including the local contributions, the magazine alsopublished a criticalessaybyKenneth Frampton, whodescribed the Strada Novissima as “self-indulgentimages of the momentwhich,lacking both densityandreferentialresonance,donothing saveengendera setof seductive simulacra.”50 The New York Times architecture critic PaulGoldberger,more equivocating,described the FortMasonCenterexhibitionby applauding itas an“experience like none otheravailable atthis momentinarchitecturalhistory”butalso observing that,
Post-modernism as shownhere is extravagant,self-indulgentand wildlyeclectic.Muchof itis alsoexciting,and some of itis verygood.Eachfaçade is a kind of logoforits creator.[…]For these are not,one mustsayagain,realbuildings.Theyare stage sets, and theywilldolittle to discourage the frequentcriticismthatpost-modernarchitects are interested onlyinfaçade decorationand notinsolving the “real”architecturalproblems.51
Anexplicitgoalof bringing “The Presence of the Past”toSanFranciscowas toexpose “more and more different kinds of people”toPostmodernism.52 Itis furthernotable thatsponsors and donors included large construction companies and realestate developers (among them,Gerald D.Hines Interests,Cushman&Wakefield,and Dinwiddie Construction) and architecturalfirms like SOM and Fisher-Friedman.Throughthe Sponsors’Pavilion and involving players fromthe realestate and constructionindustrybeyond architects,JosephWienerwas hoping toinfluence taste and openup architecturaldiscussion,and the following decade of downtown construction appears toreflecta conversationthat,inpart,was fostered atFortMasonCenter.53
“California Counterpoint:New WestCoastArchitecture”was exhibited atthe NationalAcademyof Design(1083 FifthAvenue,New YorkCity)in1982 toshare new directions inCalifornia architecture withanEastCoast audience.The exhibitand accompanying publicationwere a collaborationof the Institute of Architecture & UrbanStudies (IAUS),a New York-based thinktankoriginallyheaded byPeterEisenman,and SFAI.While ostensiblyaboutCalifornia architecture as a whole,the exhibitionselections and essays were very focused on Southern California and Los Angeles.StanleySaitowitz and Batey&Mackwere the onlyBayArea-based architects out of tenhighlighted,and Batey&Mack’s façade forthe FortMasonCenter Strada Novissima was the only SanFranciscoprojectfeatured.54 Inadditiontofeaturing the unique rendering style of Batey&Mack,the
49 Theissue featuresseveralarticles which describe theprocess of moving the Strada Novissima fromVeniceby wayof Paristo SanFrancisco, the organization and funding of theexhibition, thenewfacades by BayAreaarchitects, aswell ascritical reflections. The issueincludes photographs of eachof the facades, aswellasamapof the exhibition layout, including the facades, “HomagetoPhilip Johson,” Italian marketplace, International Gallery,Sponsors’ Pavilion, andentrygate.Referto: “ThePresence of thePast,” Archetype 3,no. 1 (Spring 1982).
53 Weinerisquoted saying: “Howdo people’s tastesimprove? Youexpose themto newideas.If 100,000 peopleseethething, that will raisethelevel of awareness,of discussions, of debate.It willhelp createan architectural consciousness of what’shappening inthefuture.” RefertoJohnGittelsohn, “ThePresence of thePastComestotheCity by theBay,” Archetype 3,no.1 (Spring 1982),9.
54 Where“CaliforniaCounterpoint: NewWestCoastArchitecture” primarily featuredphotographs of built projects, “California Counterpoint: NewWest CoastArchitecture” wasamixof photographs of built work aswellasdrawings andmodels of speculative, unbuilt, orsoon-to-be built work. California Counterpoint: New West Coast Architecture,18IAUS (NewYork: Rizzoli International, 1982).
exhibitionhighlighted the “Los Angeles School”of Postmodernism whichwas emerging withthe likes of Frank Gehry,FrederickFisher,and Morphosis.55
The exhibition“VisionarySanFrancisco”atSFMOMAin1990 explored the manypastvisions forurbanSan Francisco,including the JeanJaques Viogetand JasperO’Farrellland surveys inthe nineteenthcentury, Daniel Burham’s 1905 plan,the 1915 Panama PacificInternationalExhibition,and intopost-World WarIIurbanrenewal and freewaydevelopment.While publicbacklashtothe excesses of 1960s urbanrenewaland freeway construction and 1970s and 1980s downtownhigh-rise developmentwas apparentinthe reflections inthe exhibitioncatalog,“VisionarySanFrancisco”presented anoptimisticlookatplans forthe Yerba Buena Center andMissionBayredevelopmentareas (Fig.15).56 Amassive shiftinarchitecturalexpression was apparentinthe early1990s.The plans forYerba Buena Centerand MissionBayin“VisionarySanFrancisco” had a distinctflavor of Postmodernism andNewUrbanism.However,asultimatelyconstructed inthe mid-1990sandintothe twentyfirstcentury,the neighborhoods have muchmore New Modernistarchitecture.
Fig.15.MissionBayproposalby Skidmore,Owings& Merrill, 1990,whichwasdevelopedfrom DanielSolomon’searliermaster plan and wasincludedin the SFMOMA “Visionary San Francisco” catalog.
(Source:Skidmore,Owings& Merrill.In Polledri,ed., Visionary San Francisco,149.)
Just one yearafter“VisionarySanFrancisco,”the SFMOMAhosted “Inthe Spiritof ModernismatSFMOMA,”an exhibitionhighlighting the workof fourarchitects Jim Jennings,James Shay,WilliamStout,and TannerLeddy MaytumStacy.The exhibitionwas a markerof the backlashagainstthe “excesses of Post-Modernism”and a desire toreturntosome of the tenets of Modernismand explore how theycould,again,be relevantto contemporaryarchitecture.57 SFMOMAcuratorPaolo Polledriwrites of the exhibition:
56 Sally B.Woodbridge, “Visions of Renewal andGrowth: 1945 tothePresent,” in Visionary San Francisco, ed Paolo Polledri (SanFrancisco: SanFrancisco Museum of Art, 1990),118-151.
We cling tothe cherished image thatwe have of SanFrancisco:a cityof low buildings,buildings thatare itherdressed incolorfulmaterials orsomberlyclad inbrownshingles,theirsurfaces brokenbybaywindows.This image is a myth.Infact,throughoutits history,SanFranciscohas beena cityof constantchange.Youngergenerations of architects have rebelled againsttheir oldercolleagues. […] Modernismis aboutchange;itis aboutincorporating modern technologies to designbuildings thatare cheapertobuild,inexpensive tomaintain,and more pleasanttoinhabit.Althoughattimes simplisticand objectionable inits relentless pursuitof industrial functionalism and architecturalrationalism, Modernismis stillvalid today 58
While eachof the fourarchitects wrote manifestos aboutModernismand its relevance totheirworkand contemporarySanFrancisco,the workexhibited demonstrates a “sensitivitytosite and context”and some lineage withPostmodernisminsofaras “history[was]backonthe architectural agenda”evenas architects were moving awayfromthe historicism and classicismof traditionalPostmodernism.59 In additiontosome speculative paperprojects,the exhibitincluded the OliverResidence (340 Lombard Street,1996)byJim Jennings,the ShayResidence(276 Edgewood Avenue,1985)byJames Shay,the ManchesterTownhouses (160180 ManchesterStreet,1984),and California DataMart(laterDiamond and JewelryMart, 999 BrannanStreet, 1984)byTanner&VanDine (whichlaterbecame TannerLeddyMaytumStacy) (Fig. 16).60 Althoughthe exhibition did notuse the terminologyof “New Modernism”or“Neo-Modernism,”the curationand accompanying text explicitlyconnected the contemporaryunbuiltprojects and new workbythese fourarchitects tothe lineage of Modernism positioning itas a response toPostmodernism while emphasizing the more contextualapproach of the new work.
Fig. 16. California DataMart,which later becametheDiamondand Jewelry Mart,at999 Brannan Streetby Tanner & VanDine,1984-6.
(Source:RichardBarnes, photographer.“In the Spiritof Modernism,” San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Architecture Design Journal (November 1991),10.)
58 Paolo Polledri, “In theSpirit of Modernism,” San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Architecture Design Journal 1,no.3 (November 1991),1-2.
59 Thayer, “FourModernists atSFMoMa,” 24.
60 Polledri, “In theSpirit of Modernism,” San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Architecture Design Journal 1,no.3 (November 1991).
San Franciscoin theLate 20th Century
The period from1960 to2000 inSanFranciscowas a tumultuous time characterized bybothmajorsuccesses in civilrights and socialmovements,as well as horrifictragedies,assassinations,and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,setagainstthe backdrop ofstagflation andseveralrecessionsfollowedbythe dot-combubble. After the 1967 Summerof Love emblematicof the counterculturaland hippie movements inthe 1960s 1968 was characterized locallybythe SanFranciscoState University(SFSU)Third World LiberationFrontstrike forcivil rights,and nationallybythe assassinations of MartinLutherKing,Jr.and RobertF.Kennedy.Strides and setbacks tointegrationand fairhousing directlyaffected the citizens of SanFrancisco,as wellas the built environment.61 Following the passage of the 1963 Rumford FairHousing ActinCalifornia,realestate lobbyists and primarilyWhite voters used Proposition14 tooverturnthe law in1964,before the law was reinstated bythe California Supreme Courtin1966.Severalyears later,the CivilRights Actof 1968,including FairHousing Act clauses,passed nationally.The legacyof decades of discriminationand redlining inhousing,however,was not reversed bythese new laws.While furious constructiontried tomake up forthe large increase inSanFrancisco’s populationduring the 1940sduring and afterWorld WarII,the city’s populationactuallydecreased from1950 to 1980 as manyWhite residents chose tomove outtothe suburbs,and manyotherresidents whowere oftenof lowersocio-economicstatus or fromracialorethnic minority groups were displaced byredevelopment, gentrification, and rising housing costs (Table 1) 62
Protests andorganizedgrassrootsmovementsagainstthe excessesoffreewaydevelopment,urbanrenewaland redevelopment,and downtownhigh-rises coalesced inthe 1960s alongside a burgeoning localand national historic preservationmovement.Bythe 1970s,new planning regulations,zoning,and guidance documents reflectedandattemptedtoaddressmanyof these concerns.Neighborhood planning groups alsogotinvolved in redevelopmentprojectareas,anti-gentrificationefforts,and neighborhood arts programs.64 As the nation experienced a period of stagflationinthe 1970s, constructionslowed inSanFrancisco.Atthe beginning of the
61 ChrisCarlsson and LisaRuth Elliott, editors, Ten Years That Shook the City: San Francisco 1968-1978 (SanFrancisco:CityLightsFoundation Books, 2011).
62 Referalsoto the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency HCS
63 Thepercent change isfromthe following yearlisted onthe table.For example,thepercent population change between1940 and1950 is+22.2%.
64 Helene Whitson, “Strike!...Concerning the1968-69StrikeatSanFranciscoStateCollege,” FoundSF, accessed online February13,2024, https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=STRIKE!..._Concerning_the_1968-69_Strike_at_San_Francisco_State_College
Table 1. San Francisco Population by Decade
decade,the BayArea Rapid Transit(BART)systemopened in1972.Toward the end of the decade,in1978, the cityexperiencedthetrauma of the assassinationsofboth SupervisorHarveyMilkand MayorGeorge Moscone,as wellasthe Jonestown MassacreinGuyanawhich resultedinthe deathof manyBayArea residents.Inthe 1980s, the HIV/AIDS epidemicdevastated the city’s LGBTQcommunityand stimulated a mobilizationinthe local medicaland publichealthfields tounderstand and respond tothe disease.
Fig. 17. A San Francisco Examiner articlefrom 1980 declares“No recession in S.F.downtown building” despitethenationalrecession,noting that5.6million squarefeetof newofficespacewereunder construction in 1979andover 5.7million squarefeet wereunder construction during 1980.Atthetime,the cityhada0.2percentvacancyratein downtown office buildings.
(Source: StanfordM.Horn,“No recession in S.F. downtownbuilding,” San Francisco Examiner,June22, 1980.)
Despite a recessioninthe early1980s,San Franciscoexperienced significantgrowthdowntown withover5.7 million squarefeetof office space underconstructionand a 0.2 percentdowntownoffice vacancyrate in1980. 65 The Cityandits electoratesoughttomanagethis growthvia newpolicies setforthin the 1971UrbanDesignPlan and 1985 DowntownPlan. In1989,the Loma Prieta earthquake led tothe rebuilding of manystructures and neighborhoods aswellascode changes.The earthquakealsochanged the shape of the cityand its publicrealm as itprecipitated the demolitionof the CentralFreewayinHayes Valleyand the double-deckerEmbarcadero Freeway.Overthe following decades,the once primarilyworking piers of the northeastwaterfrontwere,through publicand private improvements along the Embarcadero,alsoopened up tothe public.Following another recessioninthe early1990s,SanFranciscosaw a rise inpopulationand increased developmentas the Financial District spread southof MarketStreet,muchof whichwas directlyorindirectlyassociated withthe “dotcom” boomof the 1990s as new startups related tothe adoptionof the internetproliferated. Bythe 1990s, redevelopmentprojects inGoldenGateway,WesternAddition,and Diamond Heights were largelycompleted, butcontinued inYerba Buena Centerand Hunters Point,and plans were being developed for MissionBay(Fig. 18 and Fig. 19)
65 Stanford M.Horn, “Norecession inS.F. downtown building,” San Francisco Examiner,June22,1980.
The twentiethcentury inSanFranciscoclosed witha mix of excitementand trepidationaboutthe new millennium and a potentialY2K event;the bursting of the dot-combubble was soontocome inMarch2000, followed fairlyquicklybythe rise of “Web 2.0”and a new wave of techcompanies beginning around 2003.
Fig.18. Aerialviewof San Francisco,looking north at SoMa,theFinancial District,andNorth Beach, 1960.
(Source: OpenSFHistory, wnp27.7879.)
Fig.19. Aerialviewof San Francisco,looking north at Mission Bay,SoMa,andthe FinancialDistrict,c. early 1990s.
(Source: Tim Dresher. FoundSF.org.)
Mostof SanFranciscowas builtout,orreservedforopenspaceorothergovernment uses,bythe 1960s (Fig. 20) The most significantconcentration of construction projects inthe late twentieth centurywere associated with SanFranciscoRedevelopmentArea projects indowntown(GoldenGateway,Yerba Buena Center,RinconPointSouth Beach,Transbay),WesternAddition,Diamond Heights,and Bayview.Downtown high-rise constructionin the FinancialDistrict filled available sites and,insome cases,replaced olderbuildings inthe 1970s and 1980s, and bythe 1990s begantoshiftsouthof MarketStreet.Outside of redevelopmentareas,residentialand neighborhood-scale commercialdevelopmentgenerallyoccurred onscattered infillsites throughoutthe city. Clusters of residentialdevelopmentoccurred on the fewremainingopenandbuildable tractsaround TwinPeaks and SutroTower. Residentialconstruction particularly multi-family residentialconstruction made up the largestportion of new construction inthe late twentiethcenturybynumberof properties, butbythe 1970s had slowedsignificantlyfromthe postwarboomof the 1950s.Onthe otherhand,bythe late 1960s,downtownoffice and hotelhigh-rises proliferated innumberand increased significantlyinscale fromthe previous decade and eventhe early1960s.
20. Mapof San Francisco showing extantpropertiesbuiltin 1960-1969(orange) and1970-2000(pink) basedon San Francisco County Assessor data.
(Source:San Francisco Open Data,Data SF,Assessor Historical Property Tax Rolls,updatedMarch 13,2024.Map createdandeditedby Page& Turnbull,April2024.)
Fig.
REDEVELOPMENT,ANTI-MANHATTANIZATION&URBANPLANNING
The late twentiethcenturywas arguablyone of the mostsignificantperiods inthe city’s historyinterms of urban planning.While the topographyand streetgrid had formanydecades conspired tomold the builtenvironment of SanFrancisco, the late twentiethcenturysaw the implementationof redevelopmentplans thatreshaped large areas of the city as wellas formative policychanges suchas inthe 1971 UrbanDesignPlan,1985 DowntownPlan,and 1989 ResidentialDesignGuidelines.These policychanges came as a reactiontothe real and perceived excesses of freewayand high-rise development,as wellas redevelopmentprojects thathad devastating consequences toexisting communities,including the predominantlyAfricanAmerican neighborhood of the Fillmore and Japanese Americanenclave of Japantowninthe WesternAddition, in additiontothe Filipinoandworking-class residentsofSoMa around Yerba Buena.This period felt,tomany,tobe a battle forthe soulof SanFrancisco interms of communities and neighborhoods as wellas the designand urban geographyof the city.66
Asstatedinthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935-1970),“Inthe postwaryears,central‐cityareas were oftenseenas congested and increasinglyobsolete,as theylosttheirshare of economicactivityrelative tothe booming suburbs.Olderurban residentialneighborhoods wereviewedas blighted slums.”67 Suburbanization,white flight, and freewayconstruction led urbancores toincreasinglybecome isolated areas forcommuters,as downtown commercial and retailareas declined withthe parallelrise of suburbanshopping malls.Still,SanFrancisco required additionalhousing forits growing populationinthe immediate postwaryears,and even‘progressive’ reformers,suchas the SanFranciscoHousing Association(whichlatermerged withTelesis toformSPUR), advocated for“slumclearance”toaddress realand perceived conditions of crowded and unsanitaryorunsafe housing.The California RedevelopmentActof 1945 provided state funds forlocal urbanrenewalprojects,and soonafter,the SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency(SFRA)was formed in1948.Title Iof the FederalHousing actof 1949 gave furtherpowerand funding toredevelopmentagencies, allowing cities and theirnewly formed redevelopmentagencies toidentify“blighted”areas,thenacquire private propertyinthe area througheminent domain,clearthe land and re-planthe streets and parcels,and sellorlease the land toprivate developers for development(oftenbelow marketrate).Availabilityof federalfunding incentivized SFRAand other redevelopmentagencies toidentifylarge areas forurbanrenewal,and new Modernistplanning principles and large-scale masterplanned developments replaced the smaller-scale mixed-use neighborhoods thathad developed overprevious decades.
The drasticnature of redevelopmentand lackof publicparticipation eventhe SanFranciscoPlanning Department had little influence overSFRA led tosignificantcriticisminthe 1960s.New organizations suchas the WesternAdditionCommunity Organization (WACO)and Tenants and Owners inOppositionto
66 Allan Temko,whoconsidered himself tobean “activist critic” atthe San Francisco Chronicle, wasby no meansthemostprogressive voice inthe debate during this period, but did notshy awayfromarticulating apoint of viewthatwasunafraid of criticizing CityHall, city planners, architects, and developers alike.In theintroduction to acollection of his essayswrittenduring the1960sto1990s,hewrites“Iwaswritingfortheworld atlarge in TheChronicle and innational magazines but Northern California wastheplace totakeastand.It hadmore tolose thanDetroit orthe Bronx.Locally, in oneof theloveliest spotson earth,Candlestick Park showed hownot tobuild aballpark. The double-decked Embarcadero freewaywasaprototype, aped inSeattle,of how toravageanurban waterfront.The Vaillancourt Fountain looked asif ithad beendeposited by agiant concrete dog with square intestines. ThenewSan Francisco FederalBuilding wasaliterally toxic monument to badgovernment. Massivedowntown high-rises, strewn along themaldesigned BARTline, inaugurated the“Manhattanization” of SanFrancisco, flattening hills, blocking views, depriving downtown streetsof sun. […] Notonly fast-buck speculators andhighway engineers, but alsoarchitects andplanners supposedly non-yahoos, whoshould haveknown better joined in thedevastation”; Allan Temko, No Way to Build a Ballpark and Other Irreverent Essays on Architecture (SanFrancisco: Chronicle Books, 1993),7.
67 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement,43.
Redevelopment(TOOR)formed toadvocate forresidents.The 1970 UniformRelocationActrequired relocation plans and bettercompensationforresidents displaced byredevelopment,butthe efficacyof suchplans has beenquestioned.SFRAwas responsible for the demolitionof 14,207 housing units between1948 and 1978,but had onlybuilt7,498 by2012.68 Citizens affected byredevelopment,as wellas subsequenthistorians,have identified manycritiques of the postwarurbanrenewalproject,including the factthatneighborhoods identified forredevelopmentwere oftenlow-income and/orcommunities of colorand there was a lackof public participation inthe planning process.Othercritiques identifiedthe short-sighted and overlyacademicapproach toplanning without adequate accountof complex socioeconomicrealities,the inhumane scale and designof the masterplans and megastructures,and the destructionof olderand historicurbanfabric.
Fig.21.MapofSan Francisco RedevelopmentAgency (SFRA) projectareas,1987.)
SFRAExecutive DirectorJustin Herman,whowas largelyresponsible forthe earlyand mostactive and destructive period of redevelopment, died unexpectedlyatthe age of 62 in1971. While Hermanwas highly regarded bythe downtownbusiness and developmentcommunityand manyincitygovernmentatthe time,he was latercompared toRobertMoses whoalsohad a complex legacyassociated withredevelopmentinNew York City and was characterized as the “arch-villaininthe blackdepopulationof the city”byThomas C. Fleming,a reporterforthe Sun-Reporter,a newspaperserving the AfricanAmericancommunityof San Francisco.69 Hermanwas succeeded byRobertRumsey and thenArtEvans,whobothhad relativelyshort tenures,before Reverend WilburHamiltonwas appointed byMayorMoscone in1977 and served as executive directoruntil 1987.70 Herman’s death,staunchpubliccriticismof redevelopmentprojects,and new federal funding mechanisms combined toreshape redevelopmentinthe 1970s and throughthe remainderof the twentiethcentury.
Bythe end of the 1970s,Diamond Heights was builtout and the GoldenGatewayprojectwas completed inthe early1980s withthe finalEmbarcaderoCentertowerand the GoldenGatewayCommons.Extensive developmentcontinued inthe WesternAddition,particularly in the A-2 area,throughthe 1980s.Afterseveral falsestarts,Yerba BuenaCenterwasunderwaybythe 1980s and muchof Yerba Buena Gardens and surrounding developments were completed inthe mid-1990s.Redevelopmentplans forRinconPoint-SouthBeach,Bayview Industrial Triangle,India BasinIndustrialPark,and Hunters Pointwere alsoadopted and executed during this period(Fig. 21).71 The redevelopmentprojectareas underactive designand constructioninthe late twentieth centuryinclude examplesofLateModern,Brutalist,ThirdBayTradition,and Postmodern architecture;referto the relevantTheme and Sub-Theme contexts laterinthis document.
Fora more comprehensive accountof urbanrenewalunderthe SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency,including the effectsonand reactionsfrom impactedcommunities, refertothe San Francisco Redevelopment Agency HCS (inprogress) 72 Redevelopmentis alsocovered inthe following contextstatements:
• “UrbanRenewal” in Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970) (adopted 2011)
• “UrbanRenewalinSanFrancisco’s AfricanAmerican Neighborhoods” in African American Citywide Historic Context Statement (adopted 2024)
• “ResettlementandRenewal” in San Francisco Japantown Historic Context Statement (May2009)
• “Post-WarEra:1946-2009”in South of Market Area Historic Context Statement (adopted 2011)
• “UrbanRenewaland Displacement”and “Yerba Buena Redevelopment”in San Francisco Filipino Heritage: Addendum to the South of Market Area Historic Context Statement (adopted 2013)
69 ChesterHartman, City for Sale: The Transformation of San Francisco (Berkeley:University of California Press, 2002), 18.
70 “FiftyYearsof Redevelopment,” SPUR Urbanist, March 1,1999,accessedonline February13,2024,https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanistarticle/1999-03-01/fifty-years-redevelopment
71 TheSan Francisco Redevelopment Agencywaslaterdissolved in 2012 byanorder of theCalifornia Supreme Court, along withsome 400 otherCalifornia redevelopment agencies, andwassucceeded by theSan Francisco Officeof Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII)which hascontinued to carryout existing redevelopment plans. “WhatWeDo,” OCII,accessedonline February13,2024,https://sfocii.org/what-we-do
72 Foranaccount of YerbaBuenaCenterand thetransformation of downtown and South of Market,refertoChesterHartman, City for Sale: The Transformation of San Francisco (Berkeley:University of California Press, 2002).Foranaccount of theGolden Gatewayredevelopment area,aswell as thetransformation of thenortheast waterfront,referto:Alison Isenberg, Designing San Francisco: Art, Land, and Urban Renewal in the City by the Bay (Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 2017). Foradditional information about the Diamond Heights redevelopment area,refertothe Diamond Heights Historic Context Statement (2016InternDraft).
Itwas againstthis backdrop of postwarurbanrenewaland freewaydevelopment,and announcements of large new downtownhigh-rises,thatresidents,journalists,and activists became concerned aboutthe “Manhattanization”of SanFrancisco. The double-deckerEmbarcaderoFreewayhad beencompleted in1959, and ittooksignificantgrassroots organizationand advocacyduring whatwere knownas the “FreewayRevolts” tostop the planning of proposed new freeways thatwould flankthe GoldenGate ParkPanhandle and cut through GlenCanyon.73 SanFrancisco’sfirst Modernisthigh-rise the CrownZellerbachHeadquarters hadbeen constructed in1959,and at20 stories itwas justover300 feettall,generallywithinthe scale of earliertwentieth centuryhigh-rises.Similarly scaled downtownconstructioncontinued inthe 1950s,butbegantoincrease inthe 1960s firstwiththe Alcoa Building (One Maritime Plaza,27 stories,398 feet) in1964,followed byother increasinglytalland massive buildings like 650 California Street(1964,SOM,33 stories),44 MontgomeryStreet (1968,JohnGraham&Associates,43stories),and555California Street(previouslyknownas the Bankof America Building,1969,SOM,52 stories),whichalsobucked the trend of lightcolored SanFranciscobuildings and glassy skyscrapers withits darkgranite cladding.Proposals unveiled atthe end of the 1960s forecasta trend of increasing heightand bulkindowntownoffice buildings withthe proposals forthe Transamerica Pyramid (WilliamL.Pereira &Associates,unveiled in1969,completed 1972),EmbarcaderoCenter(JohnPortman& Associates,unveiledin1967witha60-storytower,completedin1971-81withtwo45-storytowers),and USSteel Corporation (Skidmore,Owings &Merrill,proposed in1969 at550 feettall,unbuilt).
The rapidonslaughtof newdowntowndevelopmentmade manySanFranciscoresidents and planners feelthat the unique topographyand views of the city,along withits historicurbanfabric,were being lostwithoutdue and comprehensive consideration.The Bay Guardian,a free alternative newspaperfounded in1966 byBruce B. Brugmann, published criticalarticles and cartoons depicting the rapid redevelopmentof downtownwith skyscrapers and gave a voice towhatbecame knownas the “anti-Manhattanization”or“anti-high-rise” movementof SanFrancisco(Fig. 22).74 Manyof the voices onthis side of the debate were alreadyseasoned protesters and advocates,having beenactive inthe FreewayRevoltof the early1960s,and beganorganizing around this cause inthe late 1960s and early1970s.
Fig. 22. Bay Guardian cartoon illustrating the“Manhattanization” of San Francisco.
(Source: The Ultimate Highrise,234-35.)
73 ChrisCarlsson, “TheFreewayRevolt,” FoundSF, accessed online February 13,2024,https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Freeway_Revolt
74 Page& Turnbull, Transamerica Pyramid Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1 (submittedto SanFrancisco Planning Department, November 16,2021),54-62; and Page& Turnbull, Embarcadero Center Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1 (submitted toSan Francisco Planning Department, August10,2022),7780.
Alvin Duskin,a clothing entrepreneur-turned-activist, launched localballot measure PropositionTin1971 to limit buildingheights citywideto72feet(approximatelysix stories).75 Duskindecried the “skyline of tombstones” and the control thatdevelopers seemed tohold overthe cityinfull-page ads inlocalnewspapers (Fig. 23) 76 MayorJosephAliotoand others called Duskinan“irresponsible extremist,”and the measure as wellas two similar,subsequent,initiatives were notpassed by voters.77 However,while Duskin’s positionmighthave been too farinthe extreme forthe taste of mostvoters, he did strike a chord thatresonated withmanywhowanted to protectthe unique characterof SanFrancisco. Inthe same year,the Bay Guardian published The Ultimate Highrise: San Francisco’s Mad Rush Toward the Sky (1971),whichcompiled essays,studies,and cartoons inthe formof ananti-Manhattanization manifestowithanintroduction writtenby Duskin.
Fig.23.Thisadvertisementwasrun in the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner beginning in October 1970,and wasa firststepin Alvin Duskin’s Proposition T campaign againsttheU.S. SteelBuilding and,generally,the “Manhattanization” of San Francisco’s skyline.Thetopphoto wastaken c.1957, andthebottom photo c.1969.
(Source:BruceB.Brugmann,Greggar Sletteland, The Bay Guardian Staff,eds., The Ultimate Highrise,109.)
75 Earl Caldwell, “APrime Election Issuein SanFrancisco IsaProposed Banon HighRise Buildings,” The New York Times,November1,1971.
76 Duskin shiftedhis careerand life’swork intoactivism overabattle tostop theisland of Alcatraz being sold toaprivate developer inthe late1960s.Bruce B.Brugmann, GreggarSletteland, and The Bay Guardian Staff,editors, The Ultimate Highrise (San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Guardian, 1971),7.
77 John King,“38 yearslater,high-risehaterstill standing tall,” San Francisco Chronicle, July14,2009.
1971 UrbanDesignPlan
While the activismsurrounding the anti-freeway,anti-high-rise,and anti-redevelopmentsentiments was getting heatedinthepublicsphereinthe early1970s,theSanFranciscoPlanning Department hadalreadybeenworking onits ownresponse tothe changing urbanlandscape of SanFrancisco. AllanJacobs moved toSanFranciscoto serve as the new directorof the Planning Departmentin1967,and by1969 had started workwithhis newly assembled urbandesignplanning staff.78 The UrbanDesignPlan,published in1971 and adopted in1972,was incorporated intothe city’s Comprehensive Plan(previouslyknownas the MasterPlan and now knownas the GeneralPlan),whichwas being overhauled forthe firsttime in25 years.79 Throughthe twoyears of studies and publicparticipation to prepare the plan,a numberof issues related todevelopment,conservationof the built and naturalenvironment,and neighborhood characterwere raised;the listof “issues raised”alsoreflects some of Jacobs’primaryconcerns as anurbandesignerand inhis role as planning director,whichmaynothave been astop-of-mind forthe averagecitizen,including streetvacations and the release of airrights overstreets.80 Other issuesraisedincludedfreewaydevelopment,infillof the Bay,developmentof federallands and cityopenspace, demolition of historic landmarks, and new high-rises and superblockdevelopments.Specifically,the plannotes that“[m]ajornew buildings of extraordinaryheightand bulkhave beenopposed and criticized fortheireffects uponskyline,topographyandviews,theiroverwhelmingappearance and lackof harmony,and the disruptionof theirimmediate surroundings.”81 Inadditiontoaddressing the specificneeds and concerns of SanFranciscoat thatmoment,the UrbanDesignPlanembodied principles espoused byimportantcontemporaryurbancritics and theorists,including Jane Jacobs and KevinLynch.82
The UrbanDesignPlanwas organized intofoursections CityPattern,Conservation,MajorNew Development, Neighborhood Environment each withaprimaryobjectiveand a series of fundamentalprinciples and policies, aswellas a discussionof how the section topicrelated to“humanneeds.” Inadditiontoemphasizing principles of historic preservationtoretainlandmarks as wellas neighborhood character,the UrbanDesignPlan pushed ideasofcontextual designandurbanismbyemphasizingthescale,material, texture,proportion, form,and detail of existing and new buildings (Fig. 24).The plansuggested thatlargerand tallerbuildings should be clustered near“importantactivity centers”and thattallerbuildings could successfullybe introduced inlowerand more fine-scaled areas if there was adequate,gradualtransitionof heightand mass.
78 Allan Jacobs provides averydetailed account of his tenureasdirector of thePlanning Department andthedevelopment of the 1971UrbanDesignPlan in hismemoir. Allan B.Jacobs, Making City Planning Work (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1980).
79 Department of CityPlanning, The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan of San Francisco (San Francisco: Cityand County of San Francisco, May 1971),frontmatter,accessedonline February13,2024,https://archive.org/details/urbandesignplanf1971sanf/
80 Department of CityPlanning, The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan, 6.
81 Department of CityPlanning, The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan, 6.
82 LarryBadinernoted that the1971 UrbanDesignPlan wasphrased in awaythatwasvery“of itstime” asitdraws clearreferencesfromKevin Lynch’s concept of paths,edges,districts, nodes, and landmarks in The Image of The City (1960).StevenL.Vettelalsoobservedthattheplan heavily utilized Lynch’s notion of “legibility” in encouraging urban design thatemphasizes thecity’s “distinctive visual pattern”;StevenL. Vettel,“San Francisco’s Downtown Plan: Environmental andUrban Design Valuesin CentralBusinessDistrict Regulation,” Ecological Law Quarterly 12,no.3 (1985):533.
Fig. 24. The1971Urban Design Plan emphasized contextualdesign, suggesting thatnew buildingsshouldrespond to existing patternsand character through scale, massing,form,material, andcolor.
(Source: Departmentof City Planning, The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan,57.)
Itis alsonoted thatunusually shapedbuildingscancompeteforattention,and whenjuxtaposedneareachother cancreate “visualdisorder”Althoughunusualshapes maybe appropriate forbuildings of “symbolic importance”suchas CityHallorSt.Mary’s,it was suggested thatthey were notappropriate forthings suchas office buildings and apartmentbuildings. Clearlyinreference torecentlyconstructed buildings suchas 555 California Street,the planprovided guidance thathighlyvisible buildings should be “lightincolor”for“visual unity.”83 One of the most importantprinciples as related tonew high-rise developmentand the antiManhattanizationcritique was thatbuildings should respond the existing citypatterns and accentuate the naturaltopographyof the iconic hills (Fig. 25) 84 Alsonoteworthyis that,while the plan did notprescribe any particular architectural style,it didsuggestthatexteriorbuilding façadedetailscould provide “visualinterestand enrichment,”whichwas picked up insome contextualModernistarchitecture and toa greaterdegree in Postmodern architecture.
RefertoTheme:Late Modernism,Sub-Theme:CorporateLateModernism,and Theme: Postmodernism for relevantEvaluationCriteria.
83 Department of CityPlanning, The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan, 84.Theromanticized imageof SanFrancisco asalight-colored, white city among thehills is captured by Jack Kerouacin On The Road (1957):“Itseemedlikeamatterof minuteswhenwebeganrolling inthe foothills beforeOaklandand suddenly reached aheightand sawstretchedout aheadof us thefabulous whitecity of SanFrancisco on hereleven mystic hills with theblue Pacific andits advancing wallof potato-patch fogbeyond, and smokeand goldenness inthe lateafternoon of time.”
84 TheUrban Design Plan calls for“Tall, slender buildings atthetops of hills andlow buildings on theslopes and invalleys accentuatethe formof thehills.” Department of CityPlanning, The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan, 92.
Fig. 25. Graphicsfrom the1971Urban Design Plan relatedto exterior detailing,scaleandlocation of buildings relative totopography,andunusualbuildingsshapes.Thesegraphicswereassembledasrepresentative examplesof theplan’surban design principlesin Allan Jacob’smemoir.
(Source: Jacobs, Making Planning Work,204,210.)
1978 Residential Rezoning
Building offof recommendations and principles inthe urbandesignplan,underthe leadership of then-Planning Director RaiYukioOkamoto,the Planning Commissionpassed the new 1978 ResidentialRezoning which implemented a 40-footheightlimitinmostresidentialareas,as wellas setbackregulations.85 This rezoning was supported atthe time bycitizens,planners,and officials whowanted toprotectneighborhood characterand focus denserdevelopmentinparticularareas,buthas since beenthe subject of criticismthatthe limited zoning is “anti-growth”and has contributed tohighhousing costs and the City’s inabilitytokeep up withhousing needs.86
Architect and urbanist DanSolomon was a consultanton the “SanFranciscoResidentialZoning Study”from 1975to1978,whichinformed the adoptedrezoning.One ofSolomon’s projects thePacificHeights Townhouses (3190 SacramentoStreet,1978) was builtas a demonstrationof the new rezoning could actuallyallow for denserdevelopmentona site thanpreviouslyallowed (Fig. 26).87 The projectexhibited the regionalismand
87 Daniel Solomon, ReBuilding (NewYork: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992),82-5;and“PacificHeightsTownhouses, SanFrancisco,” Daniel Solomon, accessed online February13,2024,https://www.danielsolomon.us/housing/pacificheights/
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
contextualism of the Third BayTradition,withwood shingle siding and large gridded baywindows,and a midblockopenspace based onhistoricalurbanprecedents ratherthana rearyard setback. The projectwas even published onthe coverof the October1979 issue of Progressive Architecture 88
RefertoSub-Theme: Third Bay Tradition and Theme: Postmodernism forrelevantEvaluationCriteria.
Fig.26.PacificHeightsTownhouses(3190SacramentoStreet),completedin1978,byDanielSolomon wereexecuted asademonstrationprojectfortherecommendationsthathecontributedtointhe“SanFrancisco ResidentialZoning Study”whichinformedthe1978ResidentialRezoningchanges.Thecomplexisanimportantexampleof the overlap in theThirdBay Tradition andcontextualPostmodernism.
(Source: Joshua Freiwald(photograph) in Progressive Architecture (October 1979). DanielSolomon (siteplan).)
1985 DowntownPlan
Following the success of the 1971 UrbanDesignPlancame one of the Planning Department’s signature achievements inthe twentiethcentury the 1985 DowntownPlan underthe leadership of Planning Director DeanMacris 89 The DowntownPlanaddressed urbanform,downtownamenities,transportation,housing,and preservation,withthe interrelated goals of preserving historiclandmarks and olderbuilding stockand encouraging compatible new developmentwithdesirable amenities foroffice workers and othervisitors.90 In 2007,Macris said of the DowntownPlanand thatera of SanFranciscoPlanning:
The decade of the 1980s was probablythe mostproductive 10 years this departmenteverhad.
We published the downtownplan,whichIthinkstillstands as one of the paramountdocuments
of the profession.Thatplanintroduced somanyideas thatwere enacted inthe city’s planning code.[ ]
The amazing thing is we couldn’tgetthe moneythatwe needed forsome consultanthelp.So the downtownplanwas drafted,essentially,byourstaff.We had anoutstanding blend of skills atthattime.Mycontribution was togetthe rightpeople todothe things they're bestatdoing and thenfigure outa strategytomake ithappen.Interms of land use organization,scale and services,and pedestrianinterest,allof itwalkable,Ibelieve we presentlyhave one of the best centraldistricts inthe country, if notthe world.91
The 1985 DowntownPlan,like the 1971 UrbanDesignPlan,attempted toaddress boththe concerns of antigrowthand anti-high-rise activists,and othermore moderate concerned citizens,as wellas downtownbusiness and developmentinterests and CityHall.92 The Planning Departmentfound a supporterinMayorDianne Feinstein,whowas pro-business butcared deeply abouthow the citylooked and abouthistoricbuildings,and wholistened toMacris and the Planning Department.93 Severalof the innovative and impactfulprovisions of the DowntownPlanincluded newregulations relatedtoprivately owned openspace (POPOS)and publicart,which arefurther discussedinthe following section The PublicRealm:CulturalInstitutions, Waterfront,POPOS&Public Art andhistoricresources,asfurtherdiscussedinthe HistoricPreservationMovement&Adaptive Reuse section. Inordertosupportnewpreservationgoals,avoid encroachmentorspilloverintoneighborhoods like Chinatown, North Beach,the Tenderloin,and SoMa westof Yerba Buena,and stillsupportadditionaldowntowngrowth,a new specialuse districtwas established inthe eastportionof SoMa.The plan’s transferof developmentrights (TDR)programhelped toincentivize the shiftacross MarketStreetand the protectionof historicbuildings. The planalsocalled forrezoning of areas around downtowntoprovide forexpected housing needs,and later implemented additionalzoning and code changes would help toincentivize new multi-familyhousing on RinconHill, MissionBay, and along VanNess Avenue.94 Ultimately,the extreme stance of Duskinand others provided roomforthe Planning Departmenttofind compromise inthe DowntownPlanthatcould address concerns fromcompeting interests.95 The DowntownPlanwasadoptedin1985 bythe Board of Supervisors with a revisedprovisionthat createdanannual950,000-gross-square-footcaponnew officespace;one yearlater,the citizen-sponsored PropositionMinitiative passed lowering thatlimit to475,000 square feet.96
Similar tothe 1971 UrbanDesignPlanand the later1989 ResidentialDesignGuidelines,the DowntownPlandid not mandate anyparticulararchitecturalstyle innew construction. However,the plandid address urbanform, and included policies thatencouraged the enhancementof the streetscape withprojecting cornices and belt courses,“visuallyinteresting details and/ordecorationintothe designof the base,”and more articulated building tops,as wellas lighterand non-reflective materials and setbacks nearexisting smallerbuildings.The
92 TheDowntown Plan receivedaProgressive Architecture awardcitation forurban design and planning in1986.“SanFrancisco Downtown Plan,” Progressive Architecture (January1986),122-4.
93 John King,“Here’sanotherpartof Feinstein’sS.F. legacy:Sheshaped how ourcity looks,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 29,2023,accessedonline February13,2024,https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/feinstein-shaped-s-f-18396941.php
94 Conversations withformerzoning administrator, LarryBadiner,and formerplanning director, DeanMacris; and “DeanMacris: Towardabettercity –SPUR’s executive director interviewsSan Francisco’splanning chief,” SPUR Urbanist, February 1,2007
96 SPUR, “Proposition Mand theDowntown Growth Battle,” SPUR Urbanist, July 1,1999,accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/1999-07-01/proposition-m-and-downtown-growth-battle
proliferationof flat-topped Modernisthigh-rises was a particularbugbearof the Planning Departmentatthe time,and the DowntownPlanaddressed the perceived bulkand impactonthe skyline of new high-rises by including policies and incentives toencourage more setbacks, as wellas “sculptured”and “visuallyinteresting terminations” building tops.97
While the language of the plan,as wellas planners suchas Macris,insisted thatnoparticulararchitecturalstyle was mandated bythe DowntownPlan,manyarchitects perceived these requirements as anunwritten directive thatwas borne outinthe realities of discretionarydesignreview. HistorianMitchellSchwarzerhas described the 1985 DowntownPlanas having “anambitious preservationcomponentenacted controls tosave over500 of the most significantolderdowntownbuildings.The planalsomandated urbandesigncontrols thatwould force architects todesignnostalgictowers withdistinctive tops.Architecturalpostmodernismwas now legally enforced.”98 CriticAllenTemko,ever-colorful inhis language,frequentlyreferred tothe elaborated building tops, whichhe saw as a directresultof Planning guidance and preference forPostmodernism,as “pointy ‘hats’”and, occasionally,“pickle-stickers,” referring tospires and flag-poles onsome.99 Indeed,there was a clearshiftin downtowndesignintoPostmoderncontextualism and classicisminthe earlytomid-1980s,wheninterim controls were inplace,and afterthe officialadoptionof the plan, atleastthroughthe 1990s (Fig. 27) One of the firstexamples of the articulated building tops is the Bankof Canton(555 MontgomeryStreet,1984,SOM),with more elaborate examples following in580 California Street(1986,Johnson&Burgee),333 BushStreet(1986, SOM),345 California Center(1986,SOM),505 MontgomeryStreet(1988,SOM),and,of course,the SanFrancisco Marriott Marquis (780 MissionStreet, 1989,DMJM,ZeidlerPartnership Architects),whichTemkocalled a “hallucinatory ‘jukebox’”(Fig. 28).100
97 Oneof severalpolicies related building bulk andtops reads“Createvisually interesting terminations to building towers. All buildings should be massed or otherwisedesigned orarticulated tocreateavisually distinctive termination of thebuilding facade. The intent istoreturn tothe complex visual imageryof thesurrounding hillsides and tothe complex architectural qualities of older SanFrancisco buildings However thisdoes not meanthat literal employment of historical detailing isencouraged, although thatmaybe called forin particular circumstances. Whatisdesired istheevolution of aSanFrancisco imagerythatdepartsfrom theaustere,flattop box afacade cut off inspace.” SanFrancisco Department of CityPlanning, Downtown Plan: Proposal for Adoption by the City Planning Commission as a Part of the Master Plan (October 1984),82,accessedonline February13,2024, https://archive.org/details/downtownproposal1984sanf/
98 Mitchell Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide (SanFrancisco: William Stout Publishers, 2006),48.
99 Temko,“TheMarriottDebate:A HotelArchitects DetestandPeople Are CrazyAbout,” San Francisco Chronicle, February26,1990,in No Way to Build a Ballpark, 197;andTemko,“A27-StoryCollection of Architectural Errors,” San Francisco Chronicle, February15,1988,in No Way to Build a Ballpark, 103.
100 Temko, No Way to Build a Ballpark, 13;andTemko,“TheMarriott Debate:AHotel Architects Detestand People AreCrazyAbout,” San Francisco Chronicle, February26,1990,in No Way to Build a Ballpark, 193-8.
Fig. 27. 343SansomeStreet,which isa 15-story office additionto an adjacenthistoric building,wasdesigned by PhilipJohnson andJohn BurgeeArchitects.The building,completedin 1992,wasoneof thefirst projectsapprovedafter PropM,andexhibitsthe principlesof the1985Downtown Plan.
(Source: Kendall/Heaton Associates,c.1992.)
1989 Residential DesignGuidelines
28.SanFranciscoMarriottMarquis(55FourthStreet), completedin 1989.Thebuilding wasdesignedby AnthonyLumsdenof DMJM,after taking over theproject from EberhardZeidler.
(Source:Anthony J.Lumsden,c.1989.)
In1989,the Planning Commissionadopted the “ResidentialDesignGuidelines,”whichare stillutilized in updatedandrevisedformtoday(Planning CodeSection 311(c)(1)).The ResidentialDesignGuidelines builtupon and elaborated onmanyof the principles inthe 1971 UrbanDesignPlan,and provided more detailed guidance and illustrations forspecificallyresidentialuse cases.Similarly,the ResidentialDesignGuidelines did not mandate a specificarchitecturalstyle,butdid stronglyemphasize contextualdesignand the idea thatnew construction should “respectorimprove uponthe context”of the existing neighborhood orstreetscape,and ‘Contractor Modern’type blankboxes are indicated as “disruptive”tothe streetscape innumerous illustrations.101 Although the guidelines were notwrittentobe prescriptive,theirinterpretationand implementationarguablyled toa certainamountof designcodificationinpractice.Forexample,althoughbay windows are notexplicitlyrequired as partof new construction,referencing the iconicSanFrancisco architectural feature has become a commonmeans of contextualizing new architecture withthe existing environment.(Fig. 29)
101 SanFrancisco Departmentof City Planning, Residential Design Guidelines (Cityand County of SanFrancisco, November 1989),6,accessedonline February13,2024,https://archive.org/details/residentialdesi1989sanf_0
(Source: San Francisco Departmentof City Planning, Residential Design Guidelines (1989),9,11,and39.)
The guidelines have since beenrevised and expanded totrytofurtherclarifythat“There maybe otherdesign solutions notshowninthe Guidelines thatwillalsoresultinasuccessfulproject.The Guidelines donotmandate specificarchitecturalstyles,nor dotheyencouragedirectimitationof the past.”102 While there are exceptions,the guidelines have enforced a normative levelof contextualdesigninSanFrancisco’s residentialarchitecture since adoption.103
103 Mitchell Schwarzerwroteof the 1989 Residential DesignGuidelines: “All through theseyears, however,the overall architectural culture in Northern California wasgettingmoreprovincial. In 1989,SanFrancisco adopted Residential DesignGuidelines thatforced architects toinclude ahostof features on newbuildings thatconform tothepre-1930scityscape bay windows, beltcourses and cornices, materials likewood andstucco. Guidelines similarly encouraged breakingdown themassing of largerbuildings into smaller pieces.” Referto:Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide,49
New Urbanism
While SanFrancisco a denselybuiltseven-by-seven-mile peninsula does nothave any“new town”type developmentsforwhichNewUrbanismis perhapsbestknown,the principles of New Urbanismhave informed a numberof projects inthe city.DanielSolomon, anarchitectand founding memberof the Congress of New Urbanismin1993,spenthis careerthinking abouturbanplanning,cityblocks,and building typologies that could improve the livabilityof bothcities and suburbs.Solomon alsoworked onthe earliestiterationof the MissionBayMasterPlan(1989)withEDAW and ELS,whichexhibited manyNew Urbanistprinciples as designed, including contextual references tothe streetgrid,blocktypes,and housing types historicallyfound inSan Francisco(Fig.15) 104 ConceptspromotedbyNewUrbanism,including the 15Minute Cityand freeway-free cities, have alsoinformed SanFranciscoplanning,particularly afterthe 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.While predating the founding of the Congress forNew Urbanism,Solomon’s architecturalwork,as wellas his consultantworkfor the Planning Department related tozoning code and designguideline updates,along withthe analysis of urban designerAnne Vernez Moudon,provided prototypes and roadmaps forthinking aboutcontextualdesign, neighborhood scale,and otherqualities of livable and humane urbanism 105
Manyof the improvements toSanFrancisco’s publicrealminthe late twentiethcenturywere a directresultof new requirements setforthinthe 1985 DowntownPlanorpartof largerredevelopmentplans,including new privatelyowned publicopenspaces (POPOS)and publicart.The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and the federal 1995 Base Realignmentand Closure Act(BRAC)alsohad significantimpacts onSanFrancisco’s publicrealm opening up the northeastwaterfront and formermilitaryareas along the northside of the cityfornew recreation areasandcommercialadaptivereuse.Some ofthe most notableexamples of late twentiethcenturyarchitecture and landscape architecture inSanFranciscoare associated withthese improvements tothe publicrealm.106
The construction of the culturalinstitutions inthe Yerba Buena Centerredevelopmentarea was a significant change inSanFrancisco’s publicrealm concentrating a culturalhub neardowntown Mostof the city’s earlier museuminstitutions were located inGoldenGate Park, atthe Palace of the Legionof Honor,and the Palace of Fine Arts,farawayfromthe downtowncenterof the city.Whenthe Southof Marketsite forthe new San FranciscoMuseumof ModernArt(SFMOMA,founded in1935 as the SanFranciscoMuseumof Artinthe War MemorialBuilding),was announced inthe late 1980s,itwas considered a bold move as the neighborhood had historically beena mix of industrial;production,distribution and repair(PDR)and generallylowerincome housing and single roomoccupancy (SRO)hotels.SFMOMA,designed bySwiss architectMarioBotta ina Postmodern style,opened in1995,and was the firstof a numberof culturalinstitutions thatwere planned, alongside the Moscone ConventionCenter, numerous hotels,and the Metreon(135 4th Street,1999,GaryE. Handel&AssociatesandSMWM)inthe Yerba Buena Center(Fig. 30) Otherculturalinstitutions thatwould follow include the Yerba Buena Centerforthe Arts (701 MissionStreet,1993,FumihikoMaki),Blue Shield of California TheateratYBCA(700HowardStreet,1993,JamesStewartPolshek &Partners), Children’s CreativityMuseum(221
104 TheMission BayMasterPlan waslaterrefinedby SOMinthe1990s,but theneighborhood asbuilt out in the2020sdoesnotresemble theseearly plans. Daniel Solomon, ReBuilding (NewYork: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992) 108-9.
105 Anne VernezMoudon, Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco (Cambridge: TheMIT Press,1986).
4th Street,1998, Adèle Naudé Santos),Museumof the AfricanDiaspora (685 MissionStreet, 2005,The Freelon Group),ContemporaryJewishMuseum(736MissionStreet,2008,DanielLibeskind),andSPURUrbanCenter(654 MissionStreet, 2009,PfauLong Architecture).Exceptforthe Postmodernstyle SFMOMAand Children’s Creativity Museum,the otherinstitutions were designed inthe New Moderniststyle,and the ContemporaryJewish Museumwas designed specificallyinthe Deconstructivistmode of New Modernism.107 Formore informationon the Yerba Buena Centerredevelopmentarea,refertothe San Francisco Redevelopment Historic Context Statement (inprogress)
Fig.30. Viewof Yerba Buena Center,including theYerba Buena Center for theArts(left), SFMOMA(center),andBlueShieldof California Theater(right).TheYerbaBuenaGardens(1993) landscapewasdesignedby MitchellGiurgola, Mallas& Foote,OmiLang,PaulFriedberg, and HargreavesAssociates.Public artworks, Revelation (a.k.a.Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial) by Houston Conwill,Estella Majoza, andJoseph DePace, and Silver Walls by Lin Utzon arevisibleatlower right.
(Source:SFMOMA.HenrikKam,photographer,c. 2000s.)
The northeast waterfront was alreadyexperiencing substantialchange bythe 1960s,as formerindustrialsites transitioned tonew uses suchas atGhirardelliSquare (900 NorthPointStreet,1962-8,WursterBernardi& Emmons withLawrenceHalprin)andthe Cannery (2801LeavenworthStreet,1967,JosephEsherickand Thomas Church) or were demolished fornew development suchas atFontana Towers. Althoughcontroversial proposalssuchasthe TransamericaPyramidandEmbarcaderoCentermoved forward,several including the San FranciscoInternational MarketCenter(proposedin1968,designedbyWBEandLawrenceHalprin)andFerryPort Plaza and the USSteelCorporationtower(bothproposed in1969 bySOM) were defeated inthe early1980s.A more sensitivelyscaled and designed Postmoderncomplex was designed nearbyatLevi’s Plaza,which rehabilitated twolandmarkindustrialbuildings,and the NortheastWaterfrontHistoricDistrict was adopted.108 Pier39 (Walker&Moody) opened in1978 as a touristdestinationthatwas disdained bymanylocals as the
107 Although theYerbaBuenaCenterforthe Artsand BlueShield of California Theateropened in 1993,twoyearsbeforeSFMOMA,theplanning and design forSFMOMAbeganearlieraround 1988.JennaMcKnight, “Postmodern architecture: SanFrancisco Museum of Modern Art by MarioBotta,” Dezeen, August 10,2015,accessedonline February13,2024,https://www.dezeen.com/2015/08/10/postmodernism-architecture-sfmoma-san-franciscomuseum-of-modern-art-mario-botta-snohetta-craig-dykers-extension/
108 Alison Isenberg, Designing San Francisco: Art, Land, and Urban Renewal in the City by the Bay (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,2017),301-4.
Disneyficationof the waterfront,as the commercialretailand entertainmentprovided inthe pseudo-historic wood buildings was felttohave little todowiththe actualhistoryof SanFrancisco’s working waterfront.109
While the nature of workand industryalong the waterfrontchanged dramaticallyduring the post-World WarII period,these formerindustrialsites were being claimed and reused byprivate and corporate interests,but publicaccess tothe waterand shore itself remained fairlycut off foraverage citizens.However,the 1989 Loma Prietaearthquake had a dramaticeffectonthe cityand especiallySanFrancisco’s relationship tothe waterfront. Following the recommendationof MayorArt Agnos onSeptember24,1990,the Board of Supervisors voted to teardownthe damagedandlong-dislikeddouble-deckerEmbarcaderoFreeway,opening up physicaland visual connections tothe waterfront thathad notexisted indecades. By1992,the freewayhad beendemolished,and plans were putinmotiontorehabilitate the historicFerryBuilding aniconof SanFrancisco’s waterfront toa retailand restaurantmarkethall(BCV Architecture &Interiors, SMWM and Page &Turnbull),althoughthe project was notcompleted until2003,along withthe new HarryBridges Plaza (ROMADesignGroup).Anew 2.5-mile Ribbon of Light (1996)publicartwork a collaborationof graphicdesignerBarbara StauffacherSolomon,artist VitoAcconci, and architectStanleySaitowitz served tohighlightthe waterfrontbulkhead and celebrate the public’s reconnection withthe waterfront(Fig. 31) Along withnew parks including SouthBeachPark(1994) and RinconPark(2003,OLINStudios) the Embarcaderobecame a publicpromenade betweenthe Ferry Building and the new Giants ballpark(24 Willie Mays Plaza,2000,HOK Sport,now Populous).
Fig. 31. Ribbon of Light (1996) by Barbara “Bobbie” Stauffacher Solomon,Vito Acconci,Stanley Saitowitz,a 2.5-mile-long linear public artworkalong the Embarcadero.Theproject,also known asthe“Embarcadero Ribbon”or“PromenadeRibbon,” is extant,although thelightsno longer function.Theblackand whitestripedpole,visibleatthe left,ispartofaseriesofinterpretive history signagedesignedby artist MichaelManwaring andhistorian Nancy Leigh Olmstead.
Damage caused bythe earthquake tothe historicSanFranciscoPublicLibrarybuilding also kicked new developments inthe CivicCenterpublicrealm intogear 110 The old Beaux-Arts style librarybuilding (200 Larkin Street) was adaptivelyreused byGae Aulenti the Italianarchitectbestknownforherconversionof a former Parisienrailstationto theMuséed'Orsay tobecomethe newAsianArtMuseum,withdesignbeginning by1996
109 Allan Temko,“ThePort’sArchitectural Fiasco–Pier 39,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 30,1978,inTemko, No Way to Build a Ballpark, 175-9
110 Although plans foranewlibrary building dated toa1986 designtask forceleadby MayorDiane Feinsteinin themid-1980s,the earthquakeledto a renewedprioritization of severalCivic Centerprojects. Referto:“LibraryTimeline,” San Francisco Public Library,archived on Wayback Machine, March 1,2006,accessedonline February13,2024,https://web.archive.org/web/20060301003019/http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/news/125/timeline.htm#
HistoricContextStatement
andcompletedin2003.111 Anew mainlibrarynextdoor at100LarkinStreet,designedbyJamesIngoFreed of Pei Cobb Freed &Partners withlocalarchitectCathySimonof SMWM,presents a Postmodernfaçade tothe Civic Centerinkeeping withthe surrounding Beaux-Arts buildings ingraygranite;the side and rearfacades of the building,however,exhibitmore tendencies of New Modernism, stripped of ornamentationand visualeffects created byrotated volumes and punched openings withinthe grid of the cladding (Fig. 32).112 The earthquake alsoinspired a seismicretrofitand restorationof the Palace of the Legionof HonorMuseum,as we wellas an underground addition,repletewitha mini-glass pyramid à la I.M.Pei’s 1989 expansionof the Louvre inParis;the renovation and additionwere completed in1995 by Edward Larrabee Barnes and MarkCavagneroAssociates
Fig.32.NewSan Francisco Public Library main branch (100Larkin Street), completedin 1996.The building wasdesignedby JamesIngo Freedof Pei CobbFreed& Partnerswith localarchitectCathy Simon of SMWM.
(Source:PeiCobbFreed & Partners,c.1996.)
The 1995 Base Realignmentand Closure Act(BRAC)alsoresulted invastareas thathad beenU.S.military propertybeing incorporated intothe GoldenGate NationalRecreationArea (GGNRA),managed bythe National ParkService,including The Presidio,CrissyField,and FortMasonalong the northwaterfront,as wellas Fort Funston inthe southwestpart ofthe city; referalsoto the Government, Planning & Infrastructure (1848 -1989): Military Presence (planned)and Landscapes (1848-1989) (planned) historiccontextstatements. The Hargreaves Associates restorationof the CrissyField landscape,whichbeganin1995 and was completed in2001, exemplified the shifttoward sustainable ecologicaldesignand habitatrestorationinlandscape architecture.113
111 David Bonetti, “Revampedmuseums ahit withthe masses,” San Francisco Examiner,December 27,1996.
112 Architect JeffreyHeller,ina San Francisco Examiner opinion letter,noted thatcritic Allan Temko“accurately faults thenewbuilding for itsvisual schizophrenia andlack of classical conviction.” However, thebuilding waswell-received publicly withthe mainlight-filled atrium remaining acrowd favorite (including forTemko).Thebuilding wonthe “LibraryBuildings Award: Awardof Excellence forLibraryArchitecture” in1997,awardedby the American Institute of Architects and American LibraryAssociation, and the“BestLibrary” Interiors Awardin 1996.Referto:AllanTemko,“GreatThing Comesin So-So Package,” San Francisco Examiner,April 7,1996;JeffreyHeller,“MainConcerns,” Letters, San Francisco Examiner, April 21,1996;and “San Francisco Main Library,” PeiCobb Freed& Partners,accessed online February 13,2024,https://www.pcf-p.com/projects/san-francisco-mainpublic-library/
113 GeorgeHargreavesand MaryMargaretJones,“Fog,sky,water,landdefineCrissyField,” opinion, SFGate,January24,2014,accessedonline February13, 2024,https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Fog-sky-water-land-define-Crissy-Field-5172669.php; and Elizabeth Boults and ChipSullivan, Illustrated History of Landscape Design (Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley& Sons, Inc., 2010),232
EvenbeforeBRACin1995,theFort MasonCenterforartsandculture openedin1976 as one of the earliestpublic militaryand non-profitpartnerships inthe country, and in1982 served as the site of the installationof the traveling “Presence of the Past”Venice Biennale,whichwas a defining momentinPostmodernarchitecture locally,as discussed earlierinthis historiccontextstatementinthe Architectural Criticism, Publications & Exhibitions section.
Privately OwnedPublic OpenSpaces (POPOS)
Prior toWorld WarII,mostdowntowncommercialbuildings were builtouttoorneartheirlotlines,taking full advantage of theirrealestate.Oftenthese downtowncommercialbuildings had ornamented,evenlavish, interior lobbies.Awatershed momentinSanFrancisco’s downtownarchitecture was the constructionof the CrownZellerbachHeadquartersatOne BushPlaza (1959)bySkidmore,Owings &Merrill,whichwas notonlythe firstModernist high-rise inthe city,butalsowas notablysetoff tojust one-third of the site,witha one-story, round jewelbox pavilionand anopen,publiclyaccessible plaza occupying the remainderof the site.This plaza, whichalsoincluded the firstmajorcontemporary,non-objective outdoor sculpture a fountainbyDavid Tolerton installed inthe publicrealm,wasdescribedasa“magnificentgiftof urbanspace”tothe people of San Francisco.114 The success of this design whichwas based ondesignprecedents suchas the SeagramBuilding and plaza (1958,Mies vanderRohe and Philip Johnson)inNew YorkCity,as wellas planning principles borrowed fromNew YorkCitywhichallowed fordensitybonuses inexchange for certainpublicamenities opened up anopportunityforarchitects and developers tonegotiate overelements of theirprojects,suchas heightand bulk,inexchange forpublicamenities suchas parks and plazas as fears of Manhattanizationled to publicdebates overnew proposed high-rises.115 Forexample,Transamerica Pyramid (1972,WilliamPereira Associates)offered Redwood Park(1974,AnthonyGuzzardo)as a concessionforapprovalof the controversial design,whichwould place the city’s tallestbuilding immediatelyadjacenttothe historicand lower-scale neighborhoods of Chinatownand NorthBeach.116
Eventuallycity planners grew frustrated withthe systemof giving densitybonuses todevelopers justforwhat theysawasdoinggood urban designatthe streetlevel.Using principles established bypeople like Jane Jacobs and WilliamH.Whyte,whose book The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980)was highlyinfluentialforcity planners and architects, SanFranciscoplanners alsowanted toprovide guidelines thatwould encourage activityand use of downtownopenspaces and avoid the aestheticof primarilyopen,emptyplazas suchas at the SeagramBuilding.117
114 Allan Temko,“San Francisco’sChanging Cityscape,” Architectural Forum (April 1960)reproduced in Temko, No Way to Build a Ballpark, 20.
115 Oralinterviewsin 2023 betweenauthorand DeanMacris, formerSan Francisco Planning Director, andLarryBadiner, formerSan Francisco Zoning Administrator.
116 Page& Turnbull, Transamerica Pyramid Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1,82,118-9.
117 In anoral interviewwithformer Zoning Administrator LarryBadiner,henoted thatthe Planning Department brought William WhytetoSan Francisco to talk totheplanners about open spaceand thefindings of his research.
Fig.33. A POPOS on theroof of 343SansomeStreet,which was a requirementunder thenew 1985Downtown Plan of the developmentof an adjoining officetower addition by Philip Johnson andJohn Burgee Architects(1991).Public artwork by Joan Brown.
Fig.34.ThePOPOS attheGapHeadquarters (2Folsom Street),completed in 2000,isby landscapearchitectsOfficeof CherylBarton andOlin Partnership.
(Source: Officeof CherylBarton (O|CB), c.2000.)
Fig. 35. Greenhouseatrium POPOS for CitigroupCenter (1 SansomeStreet,builtin 1984by William Pereira & Associates) within theshellof a c.1910 AlbertPissis-designedformer bank.
The 1985 DowntownPlancodified requirements foropenspaces indevelopmentprojects inthe downtownC-3 zoning districts.These privately owned publicopenspaces (POPOS),whichhad previouslybeenbuiltby developers voluntarily,as a conditionof projectapproval,orinexchange fora densitybonus,were now systematicallyrequired withspecificguidelines (Planning Code Section138).118 POPOScould include plazas, pocket/snippetparks,and roof terraces,as wellas indoorpark,garden,orlobbyseating areas (Fig. 33 and Fig. 34).Inseveralcases,reflecting new and evolving preservationand urbandesignvalues,POPOSincorporated retained elements of the historicbuiltenvironment,suchas the Citigroup Center(1 Sansome Street,1984, WilliamPeriera &Associates)POPOSwithinthe shellof a formerbank(Fig. 35).The non-profitSanFrancisco Planning and UrbanResearchAssociation(SPUR)has identified some 45 POPOSthatwere builtbetween1959 and 1985,predating the codificationinthe 1985 DowntownPlan,and the Planning Departmenthas a listof approximately80 POPOSbuiltbetween1985 and 2019 (Fig. 36) 119
ReferalsotoHistoricContext:Late 20th CenturyLandscapeArchitecture.AsPOPOSareintegratedintothe design of downtownarchitecture inthe late twentiethcentury,theyare oftencharacter-defining features of Corporate Late Modernistand Postmodernistarchitecture; refertoEvaluationCriteria in Sub-Theme: Corporate Late Modernism and Theme: Postmodernism
118 “Privately-Owned Public OpenSpaces and Public Art (POPOS),” SanFrancisco Planning Department, accessed online February 13,2024,http://sfplanning.org/privately-owned-public-open-space-and-public-art-popos
119 “POPOS& Public ArtMap,” SanFrancisco Planning Department, accessed online February13,2024,https://sfplanning.org/privately-owned-publicopen-space-and-public-art#map; and “Secretsof San Francisco: A guideto SanFrancisco’s privately-owned public open spaces,” SPUR, October 2013, accessed online February13,2024,https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2013-10/popos-guide.pdf
Fig.36.MapofPOPOSandpublicartintheDowntown Plan area.POPOS thatare“notsubjectto Downtown Plan” (lightgreen)generallypredatethe1985 DowntownPlan.Thepublic artshown on thismapwasgenerally subjectto the1%ArtProgramintheDowntownPlan,withseveralcasesthatpredatetheplanadoptionbutwithapprovalsthat werein thespiritof thepending plan.Themapdoesnotshowpublic artassociatedwith theSan Francisco RedevelopmentAgencyprojectareas,including GoldenGateway,YerbaBuenaCenter,RinconPoint-South Beach,or theChineseCulturalCenter.
(Source: San Francisco Planning Department,2019. https://sfplanninggis.org/popos/.)
Percent for Public Art Programs
Inthe 1960s and 1970s,developers and municipalities were becoming increasinglyaware of and interested in implementing “percentforart”programs and ordinances,butnone yet formallyexisted inSanFrancisco.In 1969,the cityimplemented the ArtEnrichmentOrdinance, whichstipulated thattwopercentof gross construction costs onnew civicbuildings and publicfacilities be allocated tonew publicart.120 While San Franciscolikely looked toearlymodels like Philadelphia,whichwas the firstcityinthe countrytoadopta public artordinance in1959,the SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency (SFRA) was actuallyimplementing its own percent-for-artrequirementsindevelopmentagreementsforcertainredevelopmentprojects bythe early1960s. Aone-percentforpublicartrequirementwas stipulated inthe SFRAland dispositionagreements inthe Golden Gatewayprojectarea,whichled tothe single greatestinvestmentinpublicartinSanFranciscosince the New Deal,and marked a notable shifttoward abstractand non-objective publicart including sculptures,mosaics, murals,and textile works.121 The RedevelopmentAgencyrequired publicartcontributions forsome,butnotall, commercial developmentprojectsinother redevelopmentareasandalsoprovided funding forpublicartincivic and publicrealmareas suchas parks,plazas,and streetscapes inotherredevelopmentareas.
120 “PermanentPublic Art,” SanFrancisco Arts Commission, accessed online June28,2022,https://www.sfartscommission.org/our-roleimpact/programs/public-art
121 Lettersonfilein theOfficeof Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII,thesuccessor agencytoSFRA) archives indicate thatmany othercity planning and redevelopment agenciesinquired toexecutive director JustinHerman about SFRA’spercent-for-art requirements, which werequite innovative andpredated many city public artordinances nationwide. Perhaps in response toso manyinquiries, theRedevelopment Agencypublished abooklet on theirpublic artprogram: SanFrancisco Redevelopment Agency, Art in San Francisco Redevelopment Areas (SanFrancisco Redevelopment Agency,1979),accessedonline February 13,2024,https://archive.org/details/artinsanfrancisc1979sanf
(Source: AAR-6510,c.1970s,SFPL,History Center.)
(Source: AAR-6830,1969, SFPL,History Center.)
Privately owned,since removed.
(Source: Art in San Francisco Redevelopment Areas (1979).)
Some of the publicartworks thatwere funded by,orcommissioned orinstalled byrequirementof,the RedevelopmentAgencywere retained inpublicownership,butonlya subsethave beenformallyacquisitioned inthe CivicArt Collection underthe jurisdiction ofthe SanFrancisco Arts Commission(Fig.37andFig. 38).Other artworks,including those incorporate plazas,openspaces,and lobbies,are privatelyowned,and notallremain extanttoday;notably,a collectionof massive textile artworks bysignificantwomenartists inthe Embarcadero Centerwas removed,likelyduring a 1990s remodelof the office towerlobbies (Fig. 39).
The RedevelopmentAgencypercent-for-publicartrequirements fordevelopers,althoughnotimplemented for alldevelopmentsites inallredevelopmentareas,was robustenoughthatitserved as a proving ground and a modelforthe Citytoadoptits owntwo-percent-for-artprogram,the ArtEnrichmentOrdinance (SanFrancisco Administrative Code Section3.19),in1969,as noted earlier.The artworkfunded and installed throughthe auspices of the ArtEnrichmentOrdinance is owned bythe Cityand becomes partof the CivicArtCollection;the CivicArt Collection alsoincludes artworks thatwere gifts toorpurchases bythe City,including monuments, memorials,and otherartworks.122
Later,as partof the 1985 DowntownPlan(Planning Code Section429),the Cityalso adopted a requirementfor allnew downtowncommercialdevelopments of a certainsize tospend one percentof constructioncosts on publicart.123 The DowntownPlanexplicitlycited the success of the RedevelopmentAgency’s percent-for-art program,stating thatithad “made a substantialcontributiontothe qualityof the downtownenvironment”and pointed tothe one percentof construction costs stipulated by the RedevelopmentAgency as a justificationand basis forrequiring the same one percentfromnew downtowndevelopments.”
124 The artfunded bythe one-
122 “Public Art,” SanFrancisco Arts Commission.
123 This downtown requirement wasexpandedto severalother nearby neighborhoods in2013.
124 SanFrancisco Departmentof City Planning, Downtown Plan: Proposal for Adoption by the City Planning Commission as a Part of the Master Plan,95.
Fig.37. Vaillancourt Fountain (1971,ArmandVaillancourt) in Embarcadero Plaza.In Civic ArtCollection.
Fig. 38. Icosaspirale (1967 CharlesO.Perry) in MaritimePlaza.InCivic Art Collection.
Fig.39. Yellow Legs (1977, Barbara Shawcroft) in Embarcadero Center.
Formore information and evaluationcriteria forpublicart,referto the Public Art, Monuments & Murals Historic Context Statement (inprogress).125
Supergraphics
Inthe 1960s and 1970s,supergraphics broughtthe “California cool”of the artworld and graphicdesigntolarger scale environmentaldesign. Supergraphics whichcanbe painted onthe interiororexteriorof buildings and otherlandscape objects are characterized bytheirlarge-scale,bold colors,and simple graphicforms. San Francisco-based graphicdesignerand artistBarbara “Bobbie”StauffacherSolomonpioneered supergraphics at The SeaRanchwithherbold,colorful designsthatmergedhertraining in hardlineSwiss typographywiththe fun of WestCoastPop art;StauffacherSolomondesigned the iconicSea Ranchlogoand the supergraphics atthe Moonraker RecreationCenter(originally known asSeaRanchAthleticClub)designedbyMLTW,whichwas widely published disseminating bothThird BayTraditionarchitecture and supergraphics.126 The termitself seems to have originated inthe March1967 issue of Progressive Architecture thatfeatured the MoonrakerRecreation Centersupergraphics,and was laterentered intoWebster’s Dictionaryin1969 (Fig. 40) 127
Fig. 40. Progressive Architecture March 1967 cover featuring the supergraphicsby Barbara Stauffacher Solomon on thewallsof theSea Ranch Athletic Clubby MLTW.
Fig. 42. Supergraphic muralby MargetLarsen wrapping theShandygaff Health FoodRestaurant at1760Polk Street,c.early 1970s.Paintedover in 1974.
(Source: HorstSchmidt-Brumer andFeelieLee, Die bemalte Stadt (Koln,Germany:DuMont-Schauber,1973).)
StauffacherSolomon, whoshared anoffice withWBEand Lawrence Halprin,designed a numberof environmental supergraphics inSanFrancisco,including the interiors of HearHearRecords atthe new
125 Information specifically about public artinSan Francisco Redevelopment Agency(now, OCII) project areascanbe foundin: Page& Turnbull, San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory Findings Report (prepared forSan Francisco ArtsCommission, January2024)
GhirardelliSquare,a muralonthe exteriorof a new building atGhirardelliSquare,onthe KaiserChannel44 KBHTT.V.Studio(420TaylorStreet),andBoasPontiac (2323GearyBoulevard)(Fig. 41).128 While the lighted signs designed byStauffacherSolomonatGhirardelliremain,as does herpublicartpiece Ribbon of Light (1996, designed withStanleySaitowitz and VitoAcconci),along the Embarcadero,none of herenvironmental supergraphicsappeartobeextantinSanFrancisco. Likewise,amassivesupergraphicmuralbyMargetLarsenon the Shandygaff HealthFood Restaurant onPolkStreethas beenremoved,buthergraphicstarsigns atThe Canneryremain(althoughrepainted fromtheiroriginal green,pink,and orange scheme toallwhite) (Fig. 42) Supergraphicmurals inside the EmbarcaderoCenterbyBruce Dell,anemployee of JohnPortman&Associates, have alsobeenremoved
Inthe 1970s,SanFranciscoand the countrywere experiencing a recession,limiting the budgets of many privatelyfundeddevelopmentprojects,and supergraphics were one means thatcost-conscious developers and architects employed tointroduce colorand visualexcitementtootherwise restricted projects.One example is the BuchananStreetPark(Buchanan Street,betweenEddyand Grove streets), designed bySasaki,Walker& Associates in1975 forthe SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgencyinthe WesternAddition using a participatory designprocess.Withlimited budget,the landscape architects used over-scaled lines,making a basketballcourt into anabstractmuraland bold fontsans serif lettering tolabelvarious playequipment;none of these supergraphics are extant(Fig. 70) 129 The RedevelopmentAgencyhired graphicdesignerMichaelManwaring to designasignfortheIndia BasinIndustrial Parkona budget,andin1978 Manwaring installed large supergraphic concrete Helvetica letters thatclearlyreference the precedentof work byStauffacherSolomonand Larsen(Fig. 43).130
Fig. 43. India Basin IndustrialPark supergraphic sign,c.1978,by MichaelManwaring for theSan Francisco RedevelopmentAgency at 1550EvansAvenue.Sign hassince been removedandputin storageby theRecreation & ParksDepartment.
(Source: MichaelManwaring.)
While supergraphics were popularand the influentialgraphicdesigntrend deeplyconnected toSanFrancisco, there appeartobefew ifany extantexamplesfromthe late twentiethcenturyinSanFrancisco,and should be evaluated fortheirrarity.Supergraphicdesigns and fonts have since come backintothe environmentaldesign repertoire inthe twenty-firstcentury.131
128 “Visions Not Previously Seen: TheGroundbreaking Work of BarbaraStauffacherSolomon,” Adobe CreativeCloud, article and video, March 28,2018, accessed online February13,2024,https://creativecloud.adobe.com/discover/article/visions-not-previously-seen-the-groundbreaking-design-workof-barbara-stauffacher-solomon
130 Thesign wasremoved fromitsoriginal location fortheconstruction of thenewSoutheast Community Center,andarecurrently instorageunder the jurisdiction of theRecreation & ParksDepartment.Referto: SeanKarlin, “ManwaringLettersErased,ButNot Forgotten,” ThePotrero View,January 2021,accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.potreroview.net/manwaring-letters-erased-but-not-forgotten/
131 Stauffacher Solomon has,herself, done anumber of recent temporarysupergraphic installations attheBerkeleyArt Museum,Marin Museum of Contemporary Art, andSFMOMA.
HISTORICPRESERVATIONMOVEMENT &ADAPTIVEREUSE
The historic preservationmovementgrew and professionalized alongside the sustainabilityand environmental movements,inthe 1960s and throughthe remainderof the twentiethcentury.Althoughpreservation,like environmental conservation,had existed for manydecades,the shiftinthe 1960s was towards more legal frameworksforpreservationatlocal, state,and federallevels,and the reactiontoextensive demolitionof historic urban areas as partof redevelopmentand highwayconstructionprojects led to more organized advocacy.The NationalHistoric PreservationAct(NHPA)was passed in1966,and a flurryof NationalRegisterdesignations followedinthe 1960sand1970s.Aspreviouslynoted,NEPAandCEQAwerebothpassed in1970,whichrequired thatcertainproposed projects considerpotentialadverse impacts tothe environment,including historic resources.
SanFranciscoadopted a landmarks ordinance (Article 10 of the Planning Code)in1967,whichalsocreated the Landmarks PreservationAdvisoryBoard (LPAB,whichwas laterreplaced withthe HistoricPreservation Commissionin 2008).132 Inadditiontoa wave of individuallandmarks,the JacksonSquare HistoricDistrictwas designated as anArticle 10 locallandmarkwithina few years. The JuniorLeague of SanFranciscoundertookan architectural surveyof the cityin1963,and published the results as Here Today (1968);the listof properties included in Here Today were lateradopted bythe Board of Supervisors as a localinventoryof historicresources byResolution268-70.133 The Planning Departmentconducted a citywide architecturalsurveybetween1974 and 1976 knownas the 1976 DCP Citywide ArchitecturalSurvey and the unpublished 60-volume inventoryof some 10,000 buildings,thoughttorepresentapproximatelythe top tenpercentof architecturallynotable buildings inthe city was utilized tounderstand urbandesignand architecturalreview principles.134
The localadvocacynon-profit,SanFranciscoArchitectural Heritage (founded in1973,now knownas San FranciscoHeritage,orsimplyHeritage)commissioned a surveyof downtownSanFranciscoin1977 to1978, whichwas published in1979 as Splendid Survivors: San Francisco’s Downtown Architectural Heritage.The Planning Department laterreviewed the surveyratings and issued its ownsetof downtownguidelines and policyrecommendations inthe 1985 DowntownPlan, including historic preservationpolicies suchas Article 11 of the Planning Code,whichclassifies buildings the downtownC-3 zoning area as significant(CategoryIand II), contributory (CategoryIIIand IV),and unrated (CategoryV)buildings,withsix conservationdistricts and provisions fortransferof developmentrights (TDRs).135
While these new ordinances and surveys provided a frameworkforlocalpreservation,supportforpreservation wasgalvanizedbyseveralnotableadvocacyfightsled byHeritage,suchas the six-yearbattle forthe Cityof Paris building thenSanFrancisco’s oldestdepartmentstore whichopened in1850 and was reconstructed in1907. The fightforthe Cityof Paris was lost,butas a concession,the ellipticalrotunda and stained-glass dome were
132 SanFrancisco Planning Department, “San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 14:Brief Historyof theHistoric Preservation Movement inthe United Statesandin SanFrancisco” (2003,reprinted 2011),accessedonline February13,2024, https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/preserv/bulletins/HistPres_Bulletin_14.PDF
133 SanFrancisco Planning Department, “San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 11:Historic Resource Surveys” (January2003),accessedonline February 13,2024,https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/preserv/bulletins/HistPres_Bulletin_11.PDF
134 Oralinterview in 2023 betweenauthorand architect and planner, JeremyKotas.
retained inthe new building designed byPhilip Johnsonand John Burgee (Fig. 44 and Fig. 45) 136 More successfulexamplesofadaptive reuse,suchas GhirardelliSquare and the Cannery,were celebrated locallyand inthe national press,and advocates and planners begantopushformore sensitive and contextualadditions to historic buildings and neighborhoods.Among the bestexamples are Anshen&Allen’s 1968 Modernistoffice toweraddition(430 California Street)toBliss &Faville’s Bankof California (400 California Street,1906-8),which references the fluting of the bank’s columns inits ownconcrete spandrels,and the PostmodernbrickLevi’s Plaza (1105 BatteryStreet,1981)complex byHOK (withGenslerand Lawrence Halprin),whichresponds tothe scale and materialityof the industrialnortheast waterfront.
Fig. 44. Neiman Marcus(150Stockton Street,1982) by Johnson & Burgee includedtheellipticalrotundafrom the City of Parisdepartmentstorewhich onceoccupiedthesite. Shown c.1980s.
Advocacyforhistoric preservation,however,is nevercomplete,and time and developmentpressures have changed where the threats and new priorities lie.The protections fordowntownand olderneighborhoods have beenwellestablished,butthe fieldhassince broadened toalsoaddress culturalheritage beyond architecturally significantbuildings.While case studies like GhirardelliSquare and the Canneryclearlydemonstrated that Modernistarchitects could designsensitivelywithinanexisting historiccontext,pervasive narratives oftenpitted the preservationmovementagainstModernistarchitecture especiallywithinthe contextof redevelopmentin
136 The New York Times architecture critic Paul Goldberger called the “checkerboard boxof reddish granite” “anawkwardintrusion into San Francisco, a building that strugglestoreflect acertainspirit andends up, instead,capturing thatspirit under glassand nearly suffocatingit.” Goldberger further observesthat, while Johnson wasanotedpreservationist in somecases, that“Mr.Johnson likeshistory bestwhenhecreates it” and thatultimately Johnson’s newbuilding “upstages” therotunda. Referto: Paul Goldberger, “San Franciscans GetThreeNew Buildings,” The New York Times,November 15,1983.
Fig.
rotunda
the 1960s and 1970s whereas Postmodernismwithits historicalreferences was generalized as more sensitive and contextualfornew construction inhistoric neighborhoods
Oftenhistoric preservationis framed as antitheticaltoModernistarchitecture.However,inthe 1960s and 1970s, a numberof nationallyinfluential case studies proved thatModernistarchitects,landscape architects,and graphicdesignerscould revitalizeexisting urbansitesina sensitivewayfornewuses.As the historicpreservation movementgrew and professionalized inthe 1970s,new guidelines and sometimes restrictions were implemented;forexample,theSecretaryof the Interior’s Standardsforthe Treatmentof HistoricProperties were not publisheduntil1977.Assuch,someearlyadaptivereuseprojects exhibitcreativeandexperimentalmeans of engaging withhistoricsites.Inparticular,the rehabilitation of GhirardelliSquare froma chocolate factorytoa commercial and retailshopping centerwitha below-ground parking garage,and a similarconversionof the Cannery,were testcases thatwere awarded and published nationally,inspiring a wave of adaptive reuse and festivalmarketplace projects thatextends tothe rehabilitationof the FerryBuilding inthe early 2000s (Fig. 46 and Fig. 47).
Fig. 46. GhirardelliSquarein May 1968,after itreopenedas commercialretailcomplex.Thedesign team includedarchitects Wurster,Bernardi& Emmons,landscapearchitectLawrenceHalprin, graphic designer Barbara Stauffacher Solomon anda fountain sculptureby Ruth Asawa.
(Source: OpenSFHistory,wnp25.3898.)
Fig.47. TheCannery,a former warehouse andfruitcanningfacility,wasreconfigured with strategic incisionsandinsertionsby architectJoseph Esherick,in collaboration with landscapearchitectThomasChurch andgraphic designer MargetLarsen.
(Source: Joseph EsherickCollection, EnvironmentalDesign Archives,UC Berkeley.)
The rehabilitationof GhirardelliSquare (900 NorthPointStreet,1962-8) was led bya teamof some of the most locally renowned Modernists,including Wurster,Bernardi&Emmons (WBE),Lawrence Halprin,and Barbara StauffacherSolomon, and blends Modernist plaza terraces and contextualModernbrickbuildings inwiththe oldercomplex.The Cannery(2801 LeavenworthStreet,1967)adaptive reuse alsofeatured anall-starteamof JosephEsherick,Thomas Church,and MargetLarsen,and the resultwas a complex and playfulspatial
experience withcolorfulwayfinding.BothGhirardelliSquare and the Canneryprojects were published in national architectural journals and received numerous awards.137
Othernotable adaptive reuse projects thatfeature distinctive Modernistdesignthatis partof the publicand/or exterior experience of the building,include the Ice Houses (151 UnionStreet, c.1968,Wurster,Bernardi& Emmons),OrientalWarehouse Lofts (650 DelanceyStreet,1996-7,Fisher-FriedmanAssociates),and the San FranciscoDesignCenterand Showplace Square (c.1970s,developer HenryAdams).Insome cases,adaptive reuse of a site did notconformtopreservationbestpractices,butdid salvage certainbuilding elements or features,suchas:BannekerHomes (725 FultonStreet,1970)byJosephEsherick&Associates and Lawrence Halprin,whichreused partof a formerAcme Beerfactoryas the garage podiumfora new housing complex in the WesternAdditionRedevelopmentArea,retaining some factoryfeatures as sculpturalelements inthe courtyard (whichhave since beenremoved) (Fig. 48) 138
(Source: SFH371San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Records,SFPL,History Center.)
(Source: Loopnet.com.)
Inother cases,evenless of anold building was salvaged while the remainderof the site was redeveloped,in some cases amounting towhatis now knownas ‘facadism,’suchas Friendship Village (1047 McAllisterStreet, 1971)byBulkley&Sazevichinthe WesternAddition,whichretained a Victorianera façade as anentrygateway into the courtyard.Another example is the office toweradditionat456 MontgomeryStreet(1985,RogerOwen Boyer&Associates),whichcreated a sunkenPostmodernplaza betweenand below tworetained Neoclassical bankfacades The firmWhisler-Patri,whichworked ona numberof adaptive reuse and restorationprojects including inthe landmarkJackson Square,designed Hills Plaza (345 SpearStreet, 1986),anadaptive reuse of a
137 Pioneer Wollen Mills and D.Ghirardelli Company, National RegisterNomination No. 82002249,April29,1982;“GhirardelliSquare,” Architectural Forum (June1965):52-7;andJamesBurns,“Evaluation: AClassic Recycling after11 Years,” AIA Journal (July1978):50-59.
138 Theoriginal paint schemeforBannekerHomes included earth-tone oranges,yellows, and reds, but hassince beenrepainted gray.Theproject received aHUD AwardforDesign Excellence in1970.“BannekerHomes,SanFrancisco Kalifornien,” Das Werk : Architektur und Kunst 58 (July1971):444-6;and GarrettEckbo, Public Landscape: Six Essays on Government and Environmental Design in the San Francisco Bay Area (Berkeley:Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 1978).
Growing concerns aboutthe environment and humanimpacts onthe planetwere reflected innew legislation, suchas the CleanAirActof 1963 and CleanWaterActof 1972,and the influentialworkof the environmental science writing, Silent Spring (1962),byRachelCarson. In1970,shortlyafterthe NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act(NEPA)was passed,the California EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)was enacted,and required the analysis, publicdisclosure,and mitigationof potentialadverse impacts onthe environment(including historicresources). The firstEarth DaywascelebratednationwideonApril 22,1970,marking the earlystages of a nationalgrassroots environmental movement.
Inthe BayArea,local environmentaladvocacytook manyshapes,includingthe 1960s “Save the Bay”movement and anti-freewayprotests.140 StewartBrand beganpublishing his countercultural,do-it-yourself Whole Earth Catalog in1968 outof MenloPark,suffused withradicalethos of self-sufficiencyand ecology.141 The countercultural andhippiecommunities of the BayAreawereinvolved innumerous experimentsinthe “back-tothe-land movement”inthe 1960s and 1970s,particularlyinMarinand Sonoma counties tothe northof San Francisco,and Santa Cruz countytothe south. Hippie and eco-modernarchitecture tookmanyforms fromthe woodbutcher’s artistshacks like those of J.B.BlunkinInverness and the houseboats of Sausalito,tothe iconic geodesicdomes pioneered bymathematicianand architectBuckminster“Bucky”Fullerand popularized by doit-yourself (DIY) publications like Whole Earth Catalog, The Dome Builder’s Handbook (1973 and 1978),and Lloyd Kahn’s Domebooks (1970 and 1971) tothe radicalinflatable architecture of the interdisciplinaryartand architecture practiceofAnt Farm.142 Most examplesofeco-and hippie-modernarchitecture inthe BayArea were builtoutside of SanFrancisco,where there was more affordable space and less regulationand oversightby
140 RaeAlexandra, “The1960sWomenWhoseEnvironmental Activism Saved theBay,” KQED,April 22,2022,accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.kqed.org/arts/13911567/the-1960s-women-whose-environmental-activism-saved-the-bay; and JessicaWolfrom, “Whyarethere70 acres of open spacein theheartof San Francisco? Thank the GumTreeGirls,” San Franciso Examiner,October 5,2023
141 Widely considered atechvisionary, Brandwasinvolved in many aspectsof early computing and internetinnovation inSilicon Valley, including operating thecameraforDouglas Engelbart’s 1968 “Motherof AllDemos.” New York Times technology writer,JohnMarkoff,described Brand’sWhole Earth Catalogas"theinternetbeforetheinternet. It wasthebook of thefuture.It wasawebinnewsprint” and SteveJobs alsopointed toBrand asan inspiration; Carole Cadwalladr,“Stewart Brand’sWholeEarth Catalog,thebook thatchanged the world,” The Guardian, May4,2013,accessedonline February13,2024,https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/05/stewart-brand-whole-earth-catalog; andAnna Wiener,“TheComplicated Legacyof StewartBrand’s“WholeEarthCatalog,”” The New Yorker,November16,2018,accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-complicated-legacy-of-stewart-brands-whole-earth-catalog. Brand co-founded the LongNow Foundation in1996 inSanFrancisco, which isanon-profit headquartered in FortMason Centerwiththe goalof promoting long-termculture and thinking. Brandalso wroteanimportant book within thefield of historic preservation and urban planning, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built (VikingPress,1994).
142 Art BoerickeandBarryShapiro, Handmade Houses: A Guide to the Woodbutcher’s Art (SanFrancisco: Scrimshaw Press,1973);AntFarm, Inflatocookbook (Sausalito, CA:Rip Off Press,1970-71); KathyShaffer, Houseboats: Aquatic Architecture of Sausalito (Atglen,PA:Schiffer Publishing, 2007);Alastair Gordon, “Remembering JayBaldwin, experimental geodesic domechampion,” TheArchitect’s Newspaper, April 12,2018,accessedonline February13, 2024,https://www.archpaper.com/2018/04/remembering-jay-baldwin/; Page& Turnbull, Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds Historic Resources Documentation (prepared forCityof Petaluma, July1,2022),accessedonline February13,2024,https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_v5YKF0aRTPwRTN2KE4uGq-CzGTC18c/view;and Felicity D.Scott, “Eco-Tripping Ant Farm’sEnvironmental Media,” FlashArt, August13,2019,accessedonline February13,2024, https://flash art.com/article/ant-farm/
building departments,and were oftenassociated withcounterculturalcommunities orexperimentalprograms atschools and universities. Arare knownexample of this type of radicalarchitecture builtinSanFrancisowas a kitchen additiontoanexisting shingled home onTelegraphHill(address unknown)byAntFarmc.1975,which had anorganicamorphous bubble window thatreferences theirearlierinflatable architecture and House of the Century(Houston, TX,1972) (Fig. 50 and Fig. 51).
Fig.50.PooleHousekitchenremodel,c.1975,on Telegraph Hillby AntFarm (ChipLord,Doug Michels,andCurtis Schreier). No longer extant.
(Source: AntFarm,photograph.“From thefolkswho gave you 20-20vision,” Progressive Architecture (September 1975):64-67.)
Inthe 1970s,arecessionandenergycrisis (due tothe OPECembargoof U.S.oilimports),broughta new urgency toaddressing energy-efficiencythroughdesign.Incommercialconstruction, the interestinenergy efficiencyled toanemphasis onair-tightconstruction and reliance onmechanicalclimate control systems.Downtown highrises adopted strategies suchas mirror,tinted,orlow-e glass toavoid solargain replacing the expansive, transparentglazing associated withearlierModernism.143 In1978,California’s GovernorJerryBrown implemented the country’s firststrong energy-efficientbuilding code,knownas Title 24,and hired architectSim VanderRynas the State Architectof California,whooversaw the state’s firstenergy-efficientgovernment building projects.144 VanderRynalsotaughtecologicaldesignatUCBerkely’s College of EnvironmentalDesign and wrote numerous books onthe subject.Althoughmostof his builtworkis outside of SanFrancisco,Vander Ryndesignedtheinteriors of the innovative earlyvegetarianrestaurant,Greens Restaurant,which was opened in 1979 bythe SanFranciscoZenCenterand continues tooperate outof FortMasonCenter;the restaurantbrings togetherbothsustainable designand food, sourcing localorganicproduce fromthe ZenCenter’s GreenGulch FarminMuir Beach(Fig. 52) 145
144 Allan Temko“California’sNewGeneration of EnergyEfficient StateBuildings,” AIA Journal (December1977):50-56;andAllan Temko,“BoldStateOffices toSave Energy” San Francisco Chronicle, October 10,1977,in No Way To Build a Ballpark (1993).
145 Greenswasconstructed by PaulDiscoe of JoineryStructures andthe SanFrancisco Zen CenterCarpenters,and featuresburlwood redwood sculpture by J.B.Blunk. Vander Ryn alsodesigned several buildings forGreenGulch Farm. Referto:“About,” GreensRestaurant,accessed online February13, 2024,https://greensrestaurant.com/about/; and “TheArchitecture of Sim Vander Ryn,” SimVander Ryn, accessed online February13,2024, https://simvanderryn.com/sim-architect
Fig. 52. GreensRestaurant,shortly afteropeninginFortMasonCenterin 1979(Building A,2Marina Boulevard).Interiorsdesignedby Sim Van der Ryn.
(Source: Pilar Viladas, The Interiors Book of Shops & Restaurants (New York:Whitney Library of Design, 1981),88-89.)
Private homes alsoadopted new sustainable building strategies, including the use of solarpanels which became somewhatmore commerciallyavailable forhomeowners afterthe SolarEnergyResearch, Development,and DemonstrationAct of 1974 and otherpassive solarstrategies.Popularshelterpublications like Sunset Magazine published examples of “solarhomes”and passive solarheating and cooling strategies.146 However,manyof these strategies remained experimentalatthe time,and solarpanels have onlybecome affordable tomore homeowners inthe twenty-firstcenturywithlowermanufacturing and installation costs and federaland state tax incentives.147 One experimentalstrategywas tohave anunderground rockbed toprovide thermalmass thatwould absorb heatfromthe sunduring the dayand re-radiate itbackthroughthe building at night 148 This strategywas utilized inthe Sunhouse Complex,a Third BayTraditionstyle condocomplex in the WesternAdditionbyZoe Works (1979-80,1989 EddyStreet) (Fig. 53 and Fig. 54)
By1988,the “greenhouse effect”and “globalwarming”became household concepts during the hottestsummer onrecord atthe time.149 LocalSanFranciscoarchitecture inthe 1990s did nottypicallyhave overtsignals of sustainable design,butbythe twenty-firstcenturytrends like greenroofs and greenwalls became more pervasive features of “greenarchitecture,”suchas atthe California Academyof Sciences (2008,5 Music Concourse Drive) designed byRenzoPiano.Leadership inEnergyand EnvironmentalDesign(LEED)certification alsobecame increasinglymore commonafteritwas firstpiloted in1998.150
RefertoTheme: Late Modernism and Sub-Theme: Third Bay Tradition forrelevantEvaluationCriteria.
146 Sunset Homeowner’s Guide to Solar Heating & Cooling (Menlo Park,CA:LanePublishing Co.,1978,1980).
147 Elizabeth Chuand D.LawrenceTarazano, U.S.Patent andTrademark Office,“ABrief Historyof Solar Panels,” Smithsonian Magazine,accessed online February13,2024,https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar-panels-180972006/
148 Thestrategywaspioneered by Sim VanderRyn attheBateson StateOfficeBuilding(1981) inSacramento
149 “ClimateChangeHistory,” History, June9,2023,accessedonline February 13,2024,https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-andenvironment/history-of-climate-change
150 “Mission and Vision,” U.S. GreenBuilding Council, accessed online February13,2024,https://www.usgbc.org/about/mission-vision
(Source: SFH371San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Records, SFPL,History Center.)
In1988,concerned aboutthe affordabilityof housing and studiospace forartists,the Citypassed a new “live/work”ordinance toincentivize loftconversion and construction of new live/workbuildings forartists.While intended tosupportthe artisticand bohemianculture of SanFrancisco,the ordinance fairlyquickly became usedasaloophole fordeveloperstobuild densecomplexes onmore affordable land and take exemptions from various citytaxes,fees,and parking and affordable housing requirements,especiallyas the realestate market heatedup during the mid-1990s dotcomboom.By2002,the ordinance was repealed withthe supportof many artists and affordablehousingadvocates whorecognized thatthe unintended consequences of the ordinance gentrification of industrialareas,displacementof PDR businesses and long-time residents fromsoutheast neighborhoods,proliferationof new marketrate units notaffordable toartists ormanyothers,and the lackof enforcementof requirements forunits tobe occupied byartists and/orbusiness license holders outweighed anybenefits.151 Adamning statisticfroma Citystudy found that“Construction of live/workunits beganto increase in1996 and 1997 and reached its maximumin1999,whenmore than600 live/workunits were completed.The average initialsales price in2000 of $353,100 forthe new live/workprojects was 32 percent
151 TheCoalition forJobs, Arts& Housing, which brought togetherartists, housing advocates, andothers, rallied atCity Hall tosupport amoratorium on live/work construction leading up theordinance repeal,stating “NewLive/Work Loftsare$400,000 condos,notworkspacesforartists asoriginally intended by theartists' live/work law. Loftsarepushing jobs, artistsand businesses out of theCity, andthey havecost theCity millions of dollars in lost fees.”;referto:Absolute Arts, “NoMoreLoftsRally,” Coalition forJobs,Arts & Housing, Indepth Art News,August 9,1999,accessedonline February13, 2024,https://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/1999/08/09/25778.html.Despitethegoodintentions of theordinance, studies and reports conducted by theCityalso bore this outnoting a“failure of live/work projects tobeused either asartistwork spacesor, insome instances, asresidences atall.”; referto:“Industrial Protection Zones, Live/Work Projects andCommunity Plans,” San Francisco Boardof Supervisors, c. 2002,accessed online February13,2024, https://sfbos.org/industrial-protection-zones-livework-projects-and-community-plans An oralhistory withDebraWalker,anartist, activist, andcommissioner, provides anextensive historyof the live/work ordinance and artistlive/work spaces in SanFrancisco; Debra Walker, “Interviewwith DebraWalker:Artists’Live-Work Housing in SanFrancisco OralHistory Project,” byMichael B.KahanandNova Meurice, Stanford University. Libraries. Department of Special Collections and University Archives, August21,2020,accessedonline February13,2024, https://purl.stanford.edu/bk873ht6126. Referalso to:San Francisco Planning Code,Section 202.6.Live/Work Units,accessed online February 13,2024, https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_planning/0-0-0-49925; John McCloud, “Live-Work LawforArtistsRoils San Franciscans,” The New York Times,April 27,1997;andRobert Selna, “HowS.F.’s live-work development boom began,” SFGate,August18,2008,accessed online February 13,2024,https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-S-F-s-live-work-development-boom-began-3272818.php
Fig. 53. Section rendering of
solar
Sunhouse
Fig. 54. ThirdBay Tradition design of thebuilt SunhouseComplex (1989Eddy Street),c.1980s.
higherthannon-live/work housing.”152 Alllive/work units created underthe live/workordinance between1988 and 2002 are located inthe SoMa (and the FinancialDistrictsouthof MarketStreet),Mission,and PotreroHill neighborhoods 153
The live/workordinance had a fairlyshortlifespan,butlive/workloftconversions and construction of new live/workbuildings occurred before the ordinance was putinplace,and have continued since throughother legalzoning and building code mechanisms,like “accessoryuses”todwelling units.154 Inpractice,manyunits thatare currently designated as “live/work”uses with“Notice of SpecialRestrictions”inthe deed are not enforced.155
Some versionof artist live/workspaces could be traced backtoatleastthe MontgomeryBlock,whichwas built in1853 Inexpensive studios were rented bymanyartists and writers overthe years before the building was demolished and the site laterredeveloped withthe Transamerica Pyramid.156 Inthe 1970s,artists began occupying abandoned warehouses and factories,particularlyinthe South of Market,eastMissionDistrict,and Potrero Hillareas,whichprompteda largerdiscussionwiththe Cityabouthow tolegalizetheseoccupancies and uses.Severallong-running artist communities occupying live-workloft conversions include ProjectArtaud (499 Alabama Street,est.1971)and Developing Environments (540 Alabama Street,originallyknownas ProjectTwo, est.1972)(Fig.55).Throughthe live/workordinance, the SchmidtLithographCompany wasconverted in1992by David Baker+ Partners as the ClocktowerLofts (461 2nd Street)butdoes nothave the same kind of longstanding cohesive artistcommunity as places like ProjectArtaud and Developing Environments.
Live/worklofts typicallyfeature highceilings and large windows toallow fornaturallightand artisticpursuits thatmayrequire large walls orareas forwork.Evenas developers beganusing the live/workloophole tobuild new units thatwere nottrulydesigned forartists,these characteristics of highceilings,openplans,and lofted bedroomareas were oftenadopted because theywere alsodesirable toresidentialtenants,and the openplan andlofted bedrooms,atleast,werecheapertobuild.Other thanthesetypicalfeatures,live/worklofts could take manyforms ineitheradaptive reuse usuallyof formerindustrialbuildings ornew construction. Live/worklofts builtas new construction canexhibiteitherPostmodern orNew Modernstyles,and oftenutilize industrial materials whichreflectthe characterof theirsurrounding neighborhoods and harkentolive/workloft conversions of warehouses.Likelydue tothe factthatlive/workloftconstruction became popularinthe 1990s and inlargelyindustrialneighborhoods,styles suchas shingled orwoodsy Third BayTradition,whichis more associated withresidentialneighborhoods, are notused forlive/workbuildings.
152 “Industrial Protection Zones, Live/Work Projects andCommunity Plans,” San Francisco Boardof Supervisors, c. 2002,accessed online February13,2024, https://sfbos.org/industrial-protection-zones-livework-projects-and-community-plans
155 Many buildings constructed under thelive/work ordinance alsodo not enforcetherequirements fortenants tobe practicing artistsand/or hold a business license, making thebuildings functionally thesameasother condos. Likewise,notall formerwarehouseloft conversions arelive/work buildings, which indicates azoning and accessory useallowance.
156 JakieBarshak,“Live/Work SpacesforArtists:AHistorical Perspective,” FoundSF, 2013,accessedonline December 7,2023, https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Live/Work_Spaces_for_Artists:_A_Historical_Perspective
Fig. 55. ProjectArtaud (499Alabama Street),a long-running artist community,convertedan abandoned formerAmericanCanCompany factory to live/workartistloftsin 1971. Photograph c.1995.
(Source: Tom Gray,photographer. Sanfranciscotheaters.blogspot.com.)
Fig. 56. 86-96South Park(1996) live/workunitsby Levy Art+ Architecturein thePostmodern collagestyle.
The Corson-HeinserLive/WorkBuilding (25 Zoe Street,1992)byTannerLeddyMaytumStacy is one of the best localexamplesof New Modernismas itemerged inSan Francisco(Fig. 58).The building was recognized as part of Architectural Record’s Record House programin1992,and has beenwidelypublished inbooks,guidebooks, and maps aboutSanFranciscoarchitecture since.157 The live/workresidence reflects the industrialcharacterof the surrounding SoMa neighborhood and was originallybuiltfora husband-and-wife duowhobothrantheir separatedesignbusinessesfromthe floors above the dwelling level. TannerLeddyMaytumStacyalsodesigned a largercomplex of New Modernistlive/worklofts Showplace Square Lofts (370 De HaroStreet,1999) onan unusually narrow, angled through-blocklot thatoccupies a formerrailroad alignment. Anothernotable example of a New Moderniststyle live/workbuilding is 1022 Natoma Street(1993),whichwas designed byStanley Saitowitz,whose firmStanleySaitowitz |Natoma Architects continues tobe runoutof one of the units.
157 “Industrial Arts,” Record Houses, Architectural Record (April 1992):125-31.
58. Exterior (left) andinterior of the workspaces(right) of theNewModerniststyleCorson-Heinser Live/Work Building (25ZoeStreet,1992) by Tanner Leddy Maytum Stacy.
(Source: “IndustrialArts,” RecordHouses, Architectural Record (April1992):125-31.)
The OrientalWarehouseLofts (650DelanceyStreet,1997)byFisher-FriedmanAssociates utilize the exteriorbrick wallof a historic 1872 warehouse while inserting a New Modernistlive-workloftbuilding inside (Fig. 59).Unlike otherwarehouse loft conversions,this building is essentiallyanentirelynew structure withnew floorplates,that has structural bracing tosupportthe remaining brick walls.
asanadaptivereuselive/workprojectasthe New
seemingly crumbling brickwall.
(Source:Page
Turnbull
Fig.
Fig. 59. Current(left) andc.1997(center and right) photographsof theOrientalWarehouseLofts(650Delancey Street).Theprojectwasaconversionof a historic industrialbrickwarehouseto accommodate NewModernistliveworkloftsbyarchitectsFisher-FriedmanAssociatesin 1997. Itisnotable
The 18th &Arkansas/g2 Lofts (1995)byDavid BakerArchitects are aninteresting example of bothcontextual Postmodernism andtransitional, industrial NewModernism;the complexincludesmarketrate units and lofts,as wellas below-market-rate (BMR)live/worklofts forartists (Fig. 60) Along Arkansas Street,facing a blockof primarilypost-1906 earthquake housing,the complex features attached,Postmodernwalk-up units thatexhibit subtle references toperiod revivalstyles and typicalbaywindows,withstuccoand wood siding. Along 18th Street,whichfaces the more industrial flatlands of PotreroHill,the complex has anindustrialcharacterwith double-heightloftspaces and corrugated metalsiding.
Fig.60.18th&Arkansas/g2Lofts(1995)byDavidBakerArchitects.Thetriangularcomplexfeaturesmarket-rateunits, including contextualPostmodern walk-upapartmentsalong ArkansasStreetandindustrial(transitionalNew Modern)lofts,aswellasbelow-market-rate(BMR)artistlive/workloftswhich extendfrom 18th Streetinto thecenter of theparcel.Thecomplex also hasa 99-seatexperimentaltheater,gallery,andperformancespaces.
(Source:“18th & Arkansas/g2Lofts,” DavidBaker Architects,accessedonline February 13,2024, https://www.dbarchitect.com/projects/18th-arkansasg2-lofts)
Examples of live/workbuildings designed inthe Postmodernstyle include:728 Alabama Street(1995;unknown architect),86-96South Park(1996)byLevyArt+Architecture, 1568IndianaStreet(1999)byGaryGee,and atleast some of the HallamStreethouses (1989-90)byDonald MacDonald.158
158 Whilethe units at41-45HallamStreetwerebuilt under thelive/work ordinance, other units immediately adjacent thatwerealsodesigned by MacDonald inthe samestylearenot listedashaving a“live/work” useinavailable datathrough theSan Francisco Property Information Map and DataSF.
IMPACTOFURBANPLANNINGONSANFRANCISCOARCHITECTURE INTHELATE20TH CENTURY
Insum,new principles and values around historicpreservation and adaptive reuse; sustainability;and urban planning playedasignificantrole inshapingSanFranciscourban planning policyand guidanceinthe 1970s and 1980s,aswellasthecity’s builtform inLateModern,Postmodern,andNewModernarchitecture,asdiscussed in the following Theme andSub-Theme chapters.Responding tothe excesses of Modernistplanning,especiallyas related tofreeways, high-rises,and urbanrenewal,the SanFranciscoPlanning Departmenthad a major influence onarchitecture andurban designduringthis period.Whileevidence of this is concentrated downtown, as wellas the largernortheastquadrantand SoMa,evidence canbe seenthroughoutthe city. Emphasis on contextual design,including materialand formalreferences toexisting buildings and inurbandesignguidance documents including the 1971 UrbanDesignGuidelines,1985 DowntownPlan,and 1989 ResidentialDesign Guidelines,dovetailed withthe emergence of architecturalPostmodernism During this period of the late twentiethcentury, planners believed thatthese new contextualbuildings were “good background buildings” thatwere compatible withthe existing and historicfabricof the city, and manyarchitects and critics feltthatthe Planning Department was effectivelymandating architecturalPostmodernisminnew construction both downtownand forinfillresidentialconstruction. Unlike the proto-Deconstructivist Postmodernism of Los Angeles ormore Classiciststrains of Postmodernismon the EastCoast,muchof SanFrancisco’s Postmodernist architecture is highlycontextual,and oftenmore subtle. Bythe mid-1990s,Postmodernismhad fallenoutof vogue nationally,and SanFranciscoarchitects,too,were seeking ways toexplore new materials,space,and programthrough a returntosome of the tenets of Modernism,butwithmore sensitivitytothe existing builtand naturalenvironments.
Late20th CenturyLandscapeArchitecture
The trajectoryof landscape architecture inthe late twentiethcenturydoes notdirectlyalignwithorfollow that of architecture,insofaras there was notthe same parallelPostmodernmovementinlandscape architecture. While some landscapes doexhibitfeatures of Postmodernism mostoftenthese are landscapes directly associated withPostmodernbuildings there is notthe same bodyof theory,criticism,and builtworkina Postmodern style or aestheticwithinthe landscape architecture profession. Postmoderncritiques withinthe field of landscape architecture have tended toward ecologicaland urbanisticcritiques,whichfocused on environmental concerns,a critique of the tabula rasa approachtosite inModernism, as wellas humane urbanism through participatory design.159
Bythe 1960s,landscape architecture firms,like architecture firms,were growing insize,complexityand specialization,and manyof the mostprominentpractitioners were “expanding intothe publicsectorwithurban design,regionalplanning,andenvironmental impactstudies.”160 Where Modernistlandscapearchitects suchas Thomas Church, RobertRoyston, and GarrettEckbo were knownfortheirmanyresidentialprojects (as wellas parks and otherinstitutional landscapes),the nextgenerationof landscape architects suchas Lawrence Halprinand Sasaki,Walker&Associates were increasinglyinvolved inlargerinstitutionaland corporate landscapes ratherthanresidentialgardens.Forexample,during the 1960s and 1970s,Halprinpublished influential texts Cities (1963)and Freeways (1966)and was working onurbanscale projects like the adaptive reuseof GhirardelliSquareand the redesignofMarketStreet In 1965,landscapearchitectMichaelLaurie already was observing this trend inanarticle for Landscape Architecture Magazine,stating:
The ten-yearperiod afterWorld WarII,whengardendesignwas a majorpreoccupationof landscape architects inCalifornia,was a time of experimentationinformand ideas whichhad widespread influence throughoutthe States and inthe world.[…Later]the attentionof private landscape architects,incommonwiththe generalpublic,begantoturntolargermatters subdivisiondesign,communityand urbandesign,recreation,and parks projects,and to significantand oftencontroversialproblems of the entire physicalenvironment.Meanwhile,the private garden,thatsmallyetmostsignificantof alllandscape elements,has beenlefthanging inmid-air.Whatnew turnof events willbring itbackintothe mainstreamof designthought?161
This trend continued throughout the remainderof the twentiethcentury,witheducation,mostmid-size and large firms,publications suchas Landscape Architecture Magazine,and awards programs allfocusing more on forms of landscape architecture,urbanism,and environmentaldesignbeyond the private residentialgarden.
159 “Postmodern critiques of Modernism stressedits failure toacknowledge thepractical and ecological sideof landscape architecture, accusing it of aesthetic elitism. However, nostrong designer took GarrettEckbo’splace [whenheretired fromUC BerkeleyCollegeof Environmental Design in1978] ashoped, in part becausethe natureof thepractice had changed sodramatically. Although design continued to respond to contextand economy, the profession wasalso addressing issuesof urban design, land use, suburban development, waterandenergy shortages,demographic change, and social attitudes and interests.In fact, the environmental andparticipatory work of thecurrent faculty hadbecome theprofessional mainstream.” H. LelandVaughn, “Introduction, Space, 1948,” in Landscape at Berkeley,11
160 Vaughn, “Introduction, Space,1948,” in Landscape at Berkeley,8;and PeterWalkerandMelanie Simo, Invisible Gardens: The Search for Modernism in the American Landscape (Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press,1996),228,284-298.
161 Michael Laurie, “TheCaliforniaGarden: No Place ToGo?” Landscape Architecture Magazine 56,no. 1 (October1965):27.ReferalsotoVaughn, “Introduction, Space, 1948,” in Landscape at Berkeley,9;“Aswithinthe broader profession, emphasis on design wasdecreasing,possibly acontinued reaction tothe hegemonyof Modernism, and other issueswerechallenging itsplace such asenvironmental planning attheregional level, the scientific analysis of ecological conditions, and thestructure and formof theurban environment which werebackedwith newfederalandstate government environmental impact lawsand reviews (NEPA,CEQA, EIRs).”
Redevelopment & Corporate Landscapes
Manyof the largestand mostnotable commissions inSanFranciscoduring the late twentiethcenturyfor landscape architects were related toRedevelopmentAgencyprojects,including new publicand private parks, courtyards formulti-family housing complexes,and streetscapes. Mostof these landscapes exhibited the principlesof Modernistdesign,whicharedescribedingreaterdetailinthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935-1970). InadditiontoMaritime Plaza (public)and SydneyWaltonPark(private)inthe GoldenGateway,notable public landscapes designed inredevelopmentprojectareas included BuchananStreetPark(1975,Sasaki,Walker& Associates), BuchananPedestrianMall(1976,RaiYukioOkamoto),Hilltop ParkinHunters Point(1979,Michael PainterAssociates), and Yerba Buena Gardens &Esplanade (1993,MitchellGiurgola,Mallas &Foote,OmiLang, PaulFriedberg,and Hargreaves Associates) (Fig. 61 and Fig. 62).Manyof the multi-familyhousing complexes developedinDiamond Heightsand WesternAddition alsoincluded shared,designedlandscapes.In the Western Addition,these were usuallycentralcourtyards whichremain,butmanyhave beenaltered overtime and have typicallybeenenclosed withsecurity gates (Fig. 48)
Fig.61.TheModernistSydneyWaltonPark(1960,Sasaki,Walker & Associates) hastheappearanceof a public park,butis privately ownedby thesurrounding Golden Gateway Commonscomplex.
(Source: AAR-6791, SFPL,History Center.)
Fig.62.Buchanan Pedestrian Mall(1976,Rai Yukio Okamoto) includestwo Origami fountainsbyartistRuthAsawa andisnotable for itsincorporation of Japaneselandscape aestheticsandnaturalistic formsto complimenttheflanking Japantown retail stores.
(Source: AAR-6791, SFPL,History Center.)
Inthe 1960s,MarketStreet,SanFrancisco’s maincommercialand transitthroughfare,was ripped up forthe cutand-coverconstruction of the BayArea Rapid Transit(BART)system,whichopened in1972.As a result,Market Streetwas reimagined bylandscape architectLawerence Halprinwitharchitects MarioCiampiand JohnCarl Warneke,as a brick-paved Modernistdesigned landscape connecting a series of publicplazas and fountains EmbarcaderoPlaza,Hallidie Plaza,and U.N.Plaza and nodes around monuments and seating features.Ithas beenidentified as aneligible historicculturallandscape.162
162 Adetailed account of thehistory andsignificance of theMarketStreetCulturalLandscape can befound in: SanFrancisco Planning Department, Better Market Street Project EIR,Appendix 6:Cultural Resources Supporting Information, CaseNo.2014.0012E,StateClearinghouseNo.2015012027,DEIR
The new requirements of the 1985 DowntownPlantoprovide POPOSresulted inmanynew urbanlandscapes. However,attheirrelativelysmallscale and potentiallyforcostreasons,itseems thatmanyof these landscapes weredesignedbythebuildingarchitect ratherthan asa collaborationwitha landscape architectorfirm.Referto the previous section, The PublicRealm: Cultural Institutions, Waterfront, POPOS & Public Art,formore information on POPOS. Studies suchas People Places (1976) byClare CooperMarcus and CarolynFrancis and The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980)byWilliamH.Whyte served as guides fordesigners and planners to designmore humane,user-friendly,and activated publicplazas and POPOSinthe late twentieth century(Fig. 63).Brickand concrete were commonlyutilized materials forpublicand highly trafficked publiclandscapes, whereasprestigematerialssuchas marble and granite were more frequentlyutilized incorporate POPOS. Inthe mid-1990s,Yerba Buena Gardens introduced a bold,two-tone graphicpatternintothe Esplanade paving;other geometrictwo-toned plazas designed inthe 1990s were completed inthe early2000s,including HarryBridges Plaza,UnionSquare,and Jesse Square (Fig. 64).
One of the mostnotable corporate landscapes inSan Franciscofromthe late twentiethcenturyis Levi’s Plaza (1155-1160 BatteryStreet),designed byLawrence Halprin and surrounded bya three-blockcontextualLate Modernbrickmid-riseofficecomplexbyHOKandGensler.Halprin’s design,completed in1982,features a highly geometricModernist“Hard Park”plaza witha stepped,interactive fountain,whichis contrasted witha naturalistic “SoftPark”meta-landscape(Fig.65andFig.66).Theprojectwas widelypublished and was featured as one of Halprin’s mostsignificantlandscapes inthe retrospective exhibitionof his workatthe SFMOMAand accompanying publication, Lawrence Halprin: Changing Places (1986).
Fig. 68. John Portman’sdesign for theEmbarcadero Center Westexpansion in theearly 1980sincludes Postmodern elementsincluding thistrellisandramp fountain on CommercialStreetbetween Battery and Sansomestreets.
(Source: Page & Turnbull, 2022.)
As previouslynoted,“ecologicaldesign”(or“conservationdesign”)and “participatorydesign”were the primary new approaches tolandscape designand urbanismthatchallenged the doctrines of Modernism.165 However, plentyof Modernistarchitects shifted theirpractices towards ecologicaland participatorydesignwhile still utilizing materials and formlanguage found inModernistlandscape architecture.Forexample,Lawrence Halprin’s highlyinfluential masterplanforthe Sea Ranchonthe coastof Sonoma Countywas based onthe principle of “living lightlyon the land,”and althoughthere is a clearhand inthe landscaping of hedgerows and bluffs,the overalldesignis naturalisticwiththe idea of preserving the coastalenvironmentand ecosystem through human stewardship (Fig. 69) 166 The rising interestinecologicaldesigninthe 1960s occurred along with the burgeoning environmentalmovement,and was influenced bytexts suchas biologistand conservationist RachelCarson’s Silent Spring (1962)and landscape architectIanMcHarg’s Design With Nature (1969),which “championed site analysis techniques based onthe carrying capacityof the land and its fitness tointended
165 Randolph Hesterarguedthatparticipatory process could bea“style” inhis 1983 essay,“ProcessCanBeStyle: participation and Conservation in Landscape Architecture.” However, Modernist landscape architect GarrettEckbo disagreed withthis assessmentin aresponding lettertotheeditor, stating,“Itis afrustratingdisservice tosound, intelligent, sensitive, inspired environmental design tosay,or imply, thatitmust choose betweenthree “styles” labeled modern, conservation, and participation. These arenotstyles. They areattitudes, approaches, waysof seeing theworld. They are essential components of thelargerview andbroader conception, which areessential tothesolution of ourproblems today and tomorrow.” Hester’s essayand Eckbo’sresponse areboth reproduced in in Landscape at Berkeley,49-54.
166 “Journey ToTheSeaRanch,” University of California, Berkeley,Collegeof Environmental Design,accessed online February13,2024, https://searanch.ced.berkeley.edu/s/sea-ranch/page/Intro
use.”167 Muchof ecologicaldesignnecessarilyoccurs ata largerscale,suchas atthe levelof regionalplanning, butseveralnotable examples withinSanFranciscoinclude the GreatHighwayredesign(1984,MichaelPainter) and the wetland and dune restorationof CrissyField (1998-2001,Hargreaves Associates).168 Ecologicaland sustainabledesignwouldbecomemore intertwined withbuildingdesigninthe 2000s withthe popularityof roof gardens a notable example being the living roof atthe new California Academyof Sciences (2008,Renzo Piano) and living walls.
Fig. 69. Master plan diagram for TheSea Ranch in SonomaCountyby LawrenceHalprin.
(Source: Lawrence Halprin Collection, University of Pennsylvania.)
Inadditiontomore technical approachestoecologicaldesignand sustainability,whichwere based onscientific analysis,landscape designalsointersected withthe artworld inthe late twentiethcenturywiththe rise of conceptual “land art”movement.169 Works like RobertSmithson’s Spiral Jetty (1970,GreatSaltLake,UT)utilized nature as anartisticmedium.Noteworthycontributions to the land artmovementbyartistAndyGoldsworthy are located inSanFrancisco,butdate tothe twenty-firstcentury.170
Although environmental design,especiallyas practiced by landscape architectIanMcHarg,did take social factors into account,itis primarilydrivenmore,oratleastfirst,by ecologyand naturalsystems.Participatory design,onthe otherhand,takeshumanusers asthe primarydriverof design.Halprinwas alsoatthe forefrontof this movementwithin landscape architecture and urbanismas “one of the firstadvocates forcitizen participation inthe designprocess.”171 RandolphHesterwas anearlyand significantproponentof participatory design,writing severalkeytexts beginningwith Neighborhood Space: User Needs and Design Responsibility (1975) and teaching numerous courses atUCBerkeley’s College of EnvironmentalDesign.Principles of participatory designwereutilizedinthe developmentof BuchananStreetPark (1975,Sasaki,Walker&Associates)(Fig. 70) 172
167 McHarg washugelyinfluential in theenvironmental movement and takinglandscape architecture inthe direction of ecological/conservation design and regional planning. Boults furthernotes, “McHargdeveloped amethodology basedon coordinated overlays of maps,which became thefoundation of geographic information systems(GIS) technologies. Hepioneered theanalysis of opportunities andconstraints toassessthemany social and environmental costs of aproject”; Boults andSullivan, Illustrated History of Landscape Design, 222.
169 Boults and Sullivan, Illustrated History of Landscape Design, 219;andMarthaSchwartz, “Landscapeand Common CultureSince Modernism” in Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review,ed.Marc Treib(Cambridge,MA: TheMIT Press, 1994):260-5.
170 Theseworksinclude: Drawn Stone (2003-5)attheDeYoungMuseum;and Spire (2008), Wood Line (2010-11), Tree Fall (2013),and Earth Wall (2014),allin thePresidio.
171 Boults and Sullivan, Illustrated History of Landscape Design, 217;WalkerandSimo, Invisible Gardens, 155;andLawrenceHalprin and JimBurns, Taking Part: A Workshop Approach to Collective Creativity (Cambridge,MA: TheMIT Press, 1975).
172 Kennings, “TraffickingwithNeighbors forSan Francisco Park,” 143-6.
Aspreviouslystated,this historic context statementisprimarily focusedonarchitectural styles,and assuchtakes landscapes thatare directlyassociated withbuildings orbuilding complexes suchas residentialgardens and courtyards and corporate plazas as its purview. Designed and culturallandscapes suchas publicparks, recreationareas,andopenspaceswillbeaddressedinthe Recreation & Park Historic (1848-1989) (planned) and Landscapes(1848-1989) (planned) historiccontextstatements.As such,a separate evaluationframeworkis not provided forlate twentiethcenturydesigned landscapes inthis document.Properties thatinclude designed landscapes thatare directlyassociated withbuildings orbuilding complexes,including residentialgardens, corporate plazas,and institutionalgrounds,should be evaluated comprehensively.Inotherwords,the landscape should be evaluated as partof the overalldesignof the propertyand factored intoconsiderations of significanceandintegrity,and identificationof character-definingfeaturesforLate Modern,Postmodern and New Modern architecture.
Referalsotothe ModernLandscape Design“Criteria forEvaluation”inthe Modern Architecture HCS (19351970) 173
Fig.70.BuchananStreetPark(1975)
Sasaki,Walker&
Theme: LateModernism(1960s-1980s)
Late Modernismis a broad,umbrella termthatencompasses a varietyof expressions of Modernistarchitecture during a periodofthe late twentiethcenturythatsawmanydivergences withinand reactions toModernism.The perceived uniformityand repetitiveness of the InternationalStyle and Miesianarchitecture,and a sense that Modernismhad become mundane inits more commercialand corporate expressions,caused architects to explore new forms 174 Theoristand architecturalhistorian Charles Jencks alsoanadvocate forPostmodern architecture was one of the firstto codifythe term“Late Modern”as anarchitecturalstyle ormovement,and observed,“There are manyways tocharacterize Late-Modernarchitecture and mostof themcanbe reduced to the single notion of exaggeration.Late-Modernismtakes Modernarchitecture toanextreme toovercome its monotony and the public’s boredomwithit.”175 The divergences inAmericanarchitecture that beganinthe 1960s became pronounced inthe 1970s,and were the subjectof exhibitions and books as critics and practitioners tried togeta handle onhow todescribe and categorize the new architecture,as wellas to understand wherearchitecture wasgoing and whereitshould go.176 The photoessays inthe catalog forthe 1979 “Transformations inModernArchitecture”exhibitionatthe Museumof ModernArtinNew Yorkand Jenck’s own book Late-Modern Architecture (1980)bothillustrate the rangeof approachesandexplorations withinModernism inthe late twentiethcentury.177
During the late twentiethcenturya sense thatthe utopianpromises of Modernism architecturaland otherwise setin,and the notionthatModernistarchitecture could build a betterworld throughfunctionalism, new technologies,and materialand structuralhonesty was challenged.Corporations had adopted Modernism as the standard corporate aesthetic,and architecturalModernismwas mainstreamratherthanavant-garde. Jencks had declared the “deathof Modernarchitecture,”whichis tosayhighor orthodox Modernism,in1972 withthe intentional implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe publichousing complex (1954,MinoruYamasaki) inSt.Louis This was a narrative thatmanyothers parroted,and the period fromthe 1970s has alsobeendescribed as a “decline”forModernism.178 The SanFrancisco Modern Architecture HCS (1935-1970) characterizesthe“decline”as tied toeconomics:
Economics played a significantrole inthe decline of Moderndesign. There was anincreased disparityfrom1935to1970betweenthe costof architect‐designed customhouses and builder‐developed houses.This increase was due,inpart,tothe proliferationof agencies charged with regulating construction, seismicsafety,siting,zoning and land‐use.As architect‐designed houses became cost‐prohibitive,the numbers of “ContractorModern”buildings increased.The cheaperconstruction costs associated withModernism’s stripped‐downaestheticresulted in more and uglierbuildings despised bythe public.179
177 Drexler, Transformations in Modern Architecture (NewYork: Museumof Modern Art, distributed by NewYork Graphic Society, 1979);andCharlesJencks, Late-Modern Architecture (NewYork: Rizzoli, 1980).
178 CharlesJencks, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (NewYork:Rizzoli, 1977),9.Thereisplenty to besaid about a misreading of thesymbolism of thedemolition of thePruitt-Igoe complex asthedeathof Modernism, which fails to recognize the socioeconomic context and systemic racism in American public housing, which is documented inthe documentary, The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (2011).
179 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement,144.
Undeniably,economics,environmentalism,historic preservation,new regulations and urbanplanning guidelines,and valid critiques of urbanplanning and redevelopmentplayed a role inreshaping architecture nationally and locallyinthe late twentiethcentury.However,evenJencks,the championof Postmodernism, observed thatthe designationof “late”Modernism althoughitis linked toa notionof late capitalismand postindustrial culture inWesternsociety,as latertheorized byFredericJameson need notbe a pejorative term.He argued thatitsignaled anevolutionof Modernismtoward a “Mannerist”or“Baroque”elaborationcharacterized bymore complex and exaggerated formand materials 180 Whethersome argue thatthere was a generaldecline inarchitectural qualityorin the majority of new buildings during the period is partlya matterof subjective taste, and witheveryera there are stillexceptionalexamples of architecturaldesign thathave aesthetic,cultural,and historical value.
Indeed,Late Modernismincludes severalimportantstyles,schools,and approaches thatare uniquely characteristic of the late twentiethcentury building onmanyof the tenets of Modernismbutbreaking outof the proverbialModernist box.Some architects pushed the modernaesthetictonew extremes via advancements instructural and materialtechnologies inthe modes of Brutalism,High-TechStructuralismand Expressionism, andothers transformed the glass-and-steelofMiesiandesignintoa more tautglass skinwithmirrored and slicktechapproach.Others experimented withsculpturaland modularforms inExpressionistand Metabolistmodes, whereas some turned tovernacularprecedents and localand organicprecents as inthe regionalThird Bay Traditionand radicalecoorhippie Modernism.Stillothers drew inspirationforhistoricarchitecturalexamples, particularly Classicism, as seeninNew Formalismand Neo-Rationalism.
Precedents fora shifttowards Late Modernismare located inthe late works of Le Corbusier(particularlyNotreDame duHautinRonchamp, France)and Louis Kahn’s monumentaland primordialgeometries,and practitioners of Late ModernisminSanFranciscoincluded manyarchitects trained and practiced withinthe ModernMovement,including the likes of WeltonBecket,JohnCarlWarnecke,WilliamPereira, and SOM,who spenta laterphase of theircareers experimenting withnew forms,and as wellas trained Modernists that eventuallyrejected ormoved awayfromorthodox Modernismtodabble inPostmodernism,suchas Philip Johnson While,as discussed,otheridioms of Late Modernismexistnationallyand internationally,this historic context statementfocuses onthe expressions of Late Modernismthatare found inSanFranciscointhe late twentiethcentury.CorporateLateModernism,Brutalism,NewFormalism,andthe Third BayTraditionare further addressed as Sub-Themes inthis document,as theyhave distinctive and recognizable qualities ortypologies thathave enoughextantexamples inSanFranciscotowarrantseparate discussionand evaluationframeworks.
Commercial Late Modernism
Late Modernism,like earlierforms of Modernism,was verypopularforcommercialpropertytypes including retailcommercialbuildings,mixed-use buildings,banks,and offices.Corporate Late Modernism,whichis the particular expressionof commercialLate Modernismindowntown high-rise office and hotels,is discussed as a separate sub-theme,as the features and materials associated withthe high-rise typologyare quite distinctive; refertoSub-Theme:Corporate Late Modernism inthis document. Commercialexamples of Late Modernism range fromthe conservative suchas Opera Plaza (601 VanNess Avenue,1982,Jorge de Quesada,JohnCarl Warnecke,Anthony Guzzardo) tothe surprising and highlyexpressive suchas 145 Natoma Street(1970, Thomas Lile) (Fig. 71 and Fig. 72).Commonamongstcommercialexamples of Late Modernismis a more
180 CharlesJencks, The New Moderns: From Late- to Neo-Modernism (NewYork:Rizzoli, 1990),17,245;Cityof LosAngeles,“Architecture and Engineering/LA Modernism/Late Modern, 1966-1990,” SurveyLACitywideHistoric Context Statement(July2020), 35,accessedonline, February13,2024, https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/de23aa2c-7d44-4f2d-a071-67354bbf9255/6.13_LateModern_1966-1990.pdf; andFrederic Jameson, “Postmodernism, or theCultural Logicof LateCapitalism,” New Left Review 146(July/August1984),accessedonline February 13,2024, https://newleftreview.org/issues/i146/articles/fredric-jameson-postmodernism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-late-capitalism
massiveandheavyvisualqualitywhencompared toearlierexamples of Modernism.Brickis more commonthan inearlierModernisminSanFrancisco,and concrete and/oraggregate panelcladding are alsomore common. WhereasCorporateLate Modernismis concentrated downtown,otherexamples of commercialLate Modernism are found throughout neighborhood commercial corridors. Commercialbuildings and mixed-use complexes along VanNess Avenue and inredevelopmentareas,including the WesternAddition,Yerba Buena Center,and RinconPoint-South Beach,utilize Late Modernistdesign.
71. Opera Plaza (601Van NessAvenue,1982,JorgedeQuesada, JohnCarlWarnecke,AnthonyGuzzardo)illustratesamoreconservative sideof commercialLateModernism.The mixed-usecomplex features retail,office,andresidentialcomponents,withacentralcourtyard.The multi-levelcourtyardplaza appearsto havetaken cuesfrom EmbarcaderoCenter.Thematerialselectionanddetailing,particularly attheupper levels,lacksdistinction.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
72.145NatomaStreet(1970,Thomas Lile) istuckedaway in an alley in SoMa behindSFMOMA andissurprising in its contrasting useof brickcurveddetailsat thebalconies.
While Late Modernistarchitecture generally eschews applied ornamentationand overthistoricistreferences, whichmightbe found inPostmodernism,some examples of commercialLate Modernismhave contextual features ormaterials,since bythe late twentiethcentury urbanplanning principles were directing architects to respondmore tothe existing builtenvironment. Levi’sPlaza (1105BatteryStreet,1981,HOK,ArthurGensler,and Lawrence Halprin)inparticularis a notable example of a more contextualapproachtoscale and designin commercial Late Modernism,whichwas influenced bythe conversations around adaptive reuse,urbandesign, and anti-high-rise sentiments inthe 1970s (Fig. 73).Levi’s decided tomove theirheadquarters outof the EmbarcaderoCenterand intowhatis arguablythe onlycorporate office parkinSanFrancisco a typologymuch more associated withthe suburbs witha generouslyscaled plaza and parksurrounded bymid-rise brick buildings nestled intothe footof TelegraphHilland comfortablysituated amongsthistoricbrickwarehouses.181
181 San Francisco Chronicle architecture critic Allan Temko,whonotably disliked high-rises such astheTransamerica Pyramid andEmbarcadero Center, wentasfar assayingthat Levi’sPlazawas“notonly amagnificent giftof public space tothecity, twiceaslargeasUnion Square,but also themost eloquent alternative yetofferedtothesoul-destroying Manhattanization thatafflicts virtually everymajor U.S.metropolis” and thatitwas“one of Halprin’s most remarkablejobs.” Allan Temko,“Well-Tailored Plan FromLevi Strauss,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 14,1978.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig. 73. Levi’sPlaza (1105Battery Street, 1981) wasa collaborativedesign of Hellmuth,Obata & Kassabaum (HOK, architect),Gensler (interior architect),and LawrenceHalprin (landscapearchitect). Thelobby atrium exhibitsfeaturesof High TechStructuralism whilethe remainder of the complex ishighly contextualLate Modernism.
(Source: HOK.Peter Aaron,photographer.)
Contextual features are alsofound inLate Modernistbuildings inJapantown,where areas of the commercial core were constructed as partof the WesternAddition redevelopmentprojectarea.Following backlashtothe earlierstages of the WesternAdditionredevelopmentproject,laterphases had more communityinputand moved awayfromthe tower-in-a-parkand superblocktypologies of Modernismtoward more neighborhood scale projects.Commercialretailbuildings,particularlyatthe BuchananPedestrianMallbetweenPostand Sutterstreets,reflecta hybrid of Modernistforms including highlygeometricmassing and shed roofs and Japanese features suchas tiled roofs,exposed raftertails,and the appearance of exposed post-and-beam construction (Fig. 74).Manyof these retailbuildings inJapantowndraw onhistoricalprecedents inJapanese residentialand religious architecture,whichhad alsopreviouslybeena strong source of inspirationfor Modernistarchitects,particularly inMidcenturyModernresidences.TherearealsoexamplesinChinatownwhere Chinesearchitectural motifs havebeenincorporated inLate Modernistand Brutalistbuildings,suchas the China Trade Center(838 GrantAvenue,1966,Chan/RadarAssociates and MichaelCabak),HiltonHotel(750 Kearny Street,1971,ClementChenwithT.Y.Lin,Chen-chiKwan,and JohnCarlWarnecke),and MandarinTower(946 Stockton St,1972,Thomas Hsieh).
Foradditionalcontextand evaluationcriteria forarchitecture in Japantownand Chinatown, referto (respectively): Japantown Cultural Heritage Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS,adopted 2013)and Chinese American Citywide Historic Context Statement (inprogress).182
182 A Japantown Historic Context Statement (DonnaGravesand Page& Turnbull, 2011) waspreparedaspartof theBetterNeighborhoods Plan effort,but wasnotformally adopted.
Bythe late twentiethcentury,available single-familyresidentiallots were quite rare.The majorityof residential construction inthis period was multi-familyapartment and condobuildings,ormixed-use complexes. Inthe 1960s,the formaland materialtropes of Modernismcontinued tobe utilized inresidentialarchitecture,and the transition fromModernismand MidcenturyModernismtoLate Modernisminresidentialarchitecture exists ona spectrumduring this decade (Fig. 75) During the 1960s and 1970s,the Third BayTraditionwas a particularly popularstyle forresidentialarchitecture Single-family residentialexamples of Late Modernistarchitecture as anexpressiondistinctfromMidcenturyModernism,the BayTraditions,orPostmodernism are particularlyrare (Fig. 76 and Fig. 77)
Fig. 75. 2351FilbertStreet(1969) by RobertH. Chan.Thisapartmentbuilding continuesto utilize thetropesof Modernism,including International StyleandMidcentury Modern design,thathad been usedin previousdecades.
(Source: Joshua Freiwald,photographer,in “Nine family-sizeapartmentsgetbuilt-in privacy on a tighturban site,” House & Home 41,no.3(March 1972),40.)
Fig. 76. Joseph & StephanieKoretResidence(711El CaminoDelMar,1974)by BeverlyWillisisarareexample of LateModernistsingle-family residence.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 78. 2190Washington Street(1961,Harada & Meu), builtin theearly 1960s, exhibitsexpansivefull-height glazing,thin floorplates,andprojecting balconies, which areassociatedwith Midcentury Modern style.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
Fig.77.12424thAvenue(1970,extant) by BruceE.Heiser, photographedwhileunder construction,illustrateshow Modernistresidentialdesign continuedto evolvein increasingly rareexpressionsof single-family residential architecturein San Francisco.
Fig.81.990PacificAvenue(1969,JohnSavageBolles)isa residentialbuilding constructedin thelate1960sthat exhibitstheLateModerniststylethrough itsheavy massing,exposedconcrete,andhighlyregular pattern of recessedwindows.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
Bythe 1970s,Modernistmulti-familyresidentialarchitecture had a more distinctexpressionthanprevious decades of Modernistdesign.While stuccoand wood siding remained commoninLate Modernistresidential architecture, characteristic featuresthatemerged during this period inmid-scale (two-tofour-story) multi-family residentialarchitecture includedthe shedroof framed atthe sides byprojecting parapets. The WesternAddition A-2 and Bayview Hunters Pointredevelopmentprojectareas include concentrations of Late Modernist residentialcomplexes.Inthe WesternAddition,these tend tobe three-tofour-storyfull-blockcomplexes with centralcourtyards and limited regionalModernistfeatures suchas wood shingles orwood details.Due tothe hilly topographyof Bayview and Hunters Point,the complexes include typicallytwo-tothree-storybuildings clustered along curvilinearstreets (Fig.82) Referalsotothe San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Historic Context Statement (inprogress).
Institutional Late Modernism& Infrastructure
Fig. 82. LateModerniststyleJackieRobinson Garden Apartments(1340Hudson Avenue,1971) by African American architectsKennard& Silversin theBayview HuntersPointredevelopmentprojectarea.
The distinct heaviness of materialand formof Late Modernismis evidentininstitutionalbuildings and infrastructure, whichinclude educationaland medicalcomplexes, religious institutions, community centers,fire stations,and BARTstations.Monumental geometricformand massing are oftencombined withsubstantial construction materials suchas concrete and brick,withfewerormore deeplyrecessed windows thanearlier expressions of Modernism,and a distinctive interplaybetweenthe planes and volumes (Fig. 83 and Fig. 84)
Fig. 83. Theshiftto heavier form andmaterialin Late Modernism isevidentin theLittleSistersof thePoor complex (300LakeStreet,1982) by Anshen & Allen.The firm isresponsiblefor theiconic Modernist style InternationalBuilding (601California Street,1960) and tracthomesfor Eichler Homes,characterizedby light andglass,whereasthiscomplex isalmostbunker-like.
(Source:AAC-9995,SFPL,History Center,San Francisco HistoricalPhotograph Collection.)
Fig. 84. BethelA.M.E.Church (916Laguna Street,1973, architectunknown) expresseslateModernism in its geometric interplay of sculpturalformsandvertical planes.Thebuildingiscladingriddedconcreteandmetal panels.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Religious buildings tend toward more Expressionist modes of Late Modernism,characterized bysoaring or swooping monumentalforms.The sculptural treatmentof architecture inAmerica is particularly associated with architectEeroSaarinen. LocalSanFranciscoexampleswerebuiltprimarilyinthe 1960s and include Cathedralof St.Maryof the Assumption(1111 Gough Street,1967-71),otherreligious buildings,and the 16th and 24th Street MissionBARTstations (Fig.85andFig.89). FormoreonExpressionism,refertothe Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970).
High-Tech architecture (orHigh-TechStructuralismorStructuralExpressionism) emerged inthe 1970s as an expressionofLateModernismthatusestechnology, high-techmaterials,and systemsasthe driverof designand seeks tomake these features and systems highlyvisible.The approachwas pioneered inBritianbyarchitects suchas NormanFosterand Richard Rogers,and others contributed significantlytothe style,including Renzo PianoandSantiagoCalatrava.The use of space frames,tensile roofs,and cable structures,and futuristic-looking technology alsocaptured the imaginationof the publicatExpo’70 inOsaka.183 Notable space frame buildings thatwere builtsoonafterinthe BayArea include the LarkspurFerryTerminal(1972,Braccia,De Brer,Heglund) and Concord Pavilion(1975,FrankO.Gehry,PeterWalker).184 The fullestexpressionof High-Techarchitecture builtinSanFrancisco was the Moscone ConventionCenter(originallyknown as the Yerba Buena Convention Center),whichdemonstrates the possibilities of long-spanbridge technologyapplied tobuilding design (Fig. 86).Completed in1982,the Moscone ConventionCenterwas designed bythe renowned structuralengineerT.Y. Lin,and featured a 250,000-square-foot,column-free underground exhibithall;in2019,anexpansionof the convention center,including a new three-storybuilding,was completed bySOM withMarkCavagnero Associates,whichretained structuralelements of the originalbuilding buthas completelytransformed the look and design.185 Althoughfullexpressions of High-TechStructuralismare rare withinSanFrancisco,architects utilized some of the principles of structuralexpressiontocreate dynamicworks of Late Modernistarchitecture thatclearlyarticulate theirstructural systems and use structure as a kind of sculpturalexpression (Fig. 87 and Fig. 88)
183 “Expo1970Osaka:thestoryof Japan’sfirstWorldExpo,” BureauInternational des Expositions, accessed online February 13,2024,https://www.bieparis.org/site/en/blog/entry/expo-1970-osaka-the-story-of-japan-s-first-world-expo
185 T.Y.Lin, “"TheFatherof Prestressed Concrete":TeachingEngineers, Bridging Rivers andBorders, 1931 to1999,” EleanorSwent, 1999,OralHistoryCenter, TheBancroft Library,University of California, Berkeley,accessed online, February 13,2024, https://oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4w1003s9&query=&brand=oac4; and “Moscone CenterExpansion,” SOM,accessed online February13,2024, https://www.som.com/projects/moscone-center-expansion/
Fig. 87. Ambulatory CareCenter & Parking Garageat UCSFParnassusCampus(400ParnassusAvenue,1972) by Reid,Rockwell,Banwell& Taricshasa highly expressivestructureintheformofcantileveredconcrete waffle-slabfloorplatesandroof.Theattachedgarage down thehillalso hasa dramatically articulated concreterampdesign.
(Source: University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 1974.)
Fig. 86. MosconeConvention Center (1982,747HowardStreet) designedby structuralengineer T.Y. Lin wasarguably thefullest expression of High-Tech Structuralism in San Francisco. Photographedin 1982,theyear of completion.Thearchedsteel interiorsweredevelopedbasedon bridgetechnology,allowing for a massivecolumn-free,clear-span convention hall. Thebuilding was remodeledin 2019with a threestory addition.
(Source:AAC-0725,SFPL,History Center,San Francisco Subjects Photograph Collection.)
Fig. 88. Thelma B. Doelger PrimateDiscovery Center at theSan Francisco Zoo (2901SloatAvenue,1985) by RobertMarquisandCathy Simon isa highly expressed steelframestructure.186
(Source: “Our History,” San Francisco Zoo & Gardens, accessedonline,February 13,2024, https://www.sfzoo.org/our-history-1950s-the-zoologicalsociety/.)
186 JamesShay, New Architecture San Francisco (San Francisco: Chronicle Books,1989),112-3.
LateModernism Evaluation Criteria
Statementof Significance:
LateModernism isa broadumbrella term thatencompassesa variety of expressionsof Modernistarchitectureduring a period beginning in the1960sthatsawmany divergences withinandreactionstotheorthodoxyoftheModernMovement.Theperceiveduniformityand repetitiveness oftheInternationalStyleandMiesianarchitecture,andasensethatModernism hadbecomemundanein its morebanalandcorporateexpressions,causedarchitectsto explorenewforms often characterizedby an exaggeration of scale,material,structure,or repetition.AsLateModernism ischaracterizedby variedformsandsub-genres,itcan be difficultto definewith generalizations. Typically,LateModern commercial,institutional,and infrastructurebuildingsaremonumentalin scale;havesculpturalqualities,including strong linear elements,pronouncedstructuralcomponents, or an interplay of planesor geometric volumes,aswellasa visualweightto their form andmaterials.ResidentialLateModernism tendstobemorecontextual andan extension of earlier Modernistmodes. Someof themost iconic buildingsin San Francisco areLateModernist,or belong to a sub-themeof Late Modernism. LateModernism isalso influencedby localandregionalconcernswith environmentalism,historic preservation andadaptivereuse,andnewurban planning principles.
Significantexamplesof LateModernistarchitecturetypically display a distinctiveexpression of thisera or expressthetransitional evolution of Modernism,drawing from thecharacterdefiningfeaturesoutlinedbelow.Significantexamplesof LateModernistarchitectureinclude a rangeof property typesandwilllikely bea particularly notableexampleof theworkof an Architectof Meritor prominentfirm.Propertiesexpressing theparticular characteristicsof CorporateLateModern high-rises,Brutalism,NewFormalism,or theThirdBay tradition shouldbeevaluatedunder their respectivesub-themeevaluation frameworks.
PeriodofSignificance: 1960s –1980s
JustificationofPeriod ofSignificance:
ThereisnotacleartemporalcutoffthatdistinguishesLateModernism from earlier Modernist modes.Rather,theshiftoccursduringthe1960s,duringwhichamixofModernistmodeswere beingconstructedinSanFrancisco,includingMidcenturyModern,NewFormalism,Brutalism, ThirdBayTraditionandLateModernism.LateModernism also continuedto beutilizedin the 1980s even asPostmodernism gainedin popularity.By the1990s,Modernism was reinvigoratedinNewModernismanditisrarethatanybuildingsconstructedafter1990would beconsideredLateModernist.
Aproperty may be considered aneligible resource underCriterionC/3,if itmeets the following:
• Constructed during the period of significance (1960s to1990s)and meets the relevantcriterion considerations forproperties of the recentpast;referto“RecentPast&Considerations forResources Less than50 Years Old”inthe Introduction of this report.
• Significantexamples of Late Modernismthatmayqualifyas eligible historic resources are excellentor distinctive expressionsofLateModernism.Comparativeanalysiswithothercontemporaneous examples of LateModernismisimportant tounderstanding whetherthe propertymayrisetoa levelof significance foreligibilityunderCriterion C/3.
o Late Modernistbuildings include a range of sub-themes orrelated styles,including Corporate Late Modernism,Brutalism,NewFormalism,and the Third Bay Tradition.These properties should be evaluated using the relevantevaluationcriteria inthis document,oras referenced in otherhistoric context statements.
• Mustretaincharacter-defining features and have highlevels of integrity,particularlyintegrityof design, materials,and workmanship.
• Rarityof anextantpropertytype inthe Late Moderniststyle maybe a considerationindetermining eligibility.
• Properties thatinclude anoriginal,associated publicartworkand/ordesigned landscape,including residentialgardens,corporate plazas,and institutionalgrounds,should be evaluated comprehensively. Inother words,the landscape and/orpublicartshould be evaluated as partof the overalldesignof the propertyand factored intoconsiderations of significance and integrity,and identificationof characterdefining features.
o The presence of extantsupergraphics (whetherdesigned bythe building architectoranother artist) maybeconsideredacharacter-definingfeature of a Late Modernistproperty,ormayhave significance as a workof designintheirownright.Extantenvironmental-scale supergraphics fromthe late twentiethcenturyappeartobe rare inSanFrancisco.
o Insome cases,apublicartwork and/ordesignedlandscape mayalsorise toa levelof individual significance.Referalsotothe evaluative frameworks infollowing historiccontextstatements: Public Art, Monuments & Murals (inprogress)and Landscapes (1848 -1989) (planned).
• Otherconsiderations:
o Properties designed orconstructed byanArchitectorBuilderof Merit,particularlyif the resource is a rare orexceptionalexample of the architectorbuilder’s workinSanFrancisco, should be considered.Refertothe Evaluative Frameworkin Architecture, Planning, & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies forfurtherinformation.
o Examples of adaptive reuse mayinclude Late Modernistadditions oralterations,whichmaybe consideredforeligibilityunderCriterion C/3as examples of Late Modernism.Eligible properties would include distinctive,fullexamples of Late Modernistdesignthatare clearlyvisible and expressed atthe exteriororwithinthe publicrealm;inotherwords,aninteriorremodelof an existing building foranadaptive reuse projectis unlikelytobe eligible underCriterionC/3 for associationwiththe theme of Late Modernism.
o ApropertymayalsoqualifyunderCriterionC/3 as a contributortoa historicdistrictif itis situated withina geographicallycohesive grouping of buildings related bydesignor byan architector developer.Inordertomeetlocal,state,and/ornationalregistrationrequirements as a district,a majorityof contributing properties would need toretainmostof theircharacterdefining features.Generally,contributors toa historicdistrict need notmeetas higha threshold forintegrityas individualbuildings;however,atthis time,a highdegree of integritywould be expected forLate Modernistbuildings if partof aneligible historicdistrictas notmuchtime has passed since theiroriginalconstruction. To qualifyas a historicdistrictunderCriterion C/3,the grouping should possess distinctive and unique architecturalcharacteristics,ratherthansimply be a group of typicalLate Modernistbuildings.
Character-Defining Features
Character-definingfeaturesofLateModernistarchitecture significantunderCriterion C/3 arethose elements that representitssignificantdesignqualities relative toits date of construction.While Late Modernistarchitecture has a particular approachtoformand materials,itis nota strict“style”like more traditionalstyles orperiod revivals thathave anidentifiable setof commonfeatures and materials thatwere codified througharchitectural educationandtraining, patternbooks,andcatalogs.Assuch,alist of characteristic featuresassociatedwith Late Modernismshould not beunderstood or treatedasfinite 187 The following are features thatcanbe characteristic of significantLate Modernistarchitecture:
• Massing and materials are oftenvisuallyheavierthanearlierModernism.
• Strong geometricorsculptural forms,including repeating modules oraninterplayof planes and volumes,are typicalof the massing.
• Flatroofs are common,butotherroof forms,including shed,parabolic,and flat-on-hipped,maybe used.
o Shed roof forms framed byprojecting stuccoside parapets are distinctive of Late Modernism.
• Concrete,brick,metal,and concrete orsyntheticpanels are more commonmaterials forcommercial and institutional examples,whereas stucco,wood,and concrete are typicalof residentialexamples.
187 Thesameis trueforother LateModernistand Postmodernist styles which haveawide, andsometimes divergent, rangeof expressions especially across property types.
Integrity Considerations
Apropertyeligible underCriterionC/3 should retainthe majorityof its aspects of integritydating tothe period whenthe significantdesignwas completed,withanemphasis of integrityof design,materials,and workmanship. The building’s significantdesignqualities should remainreadilyapparent,and the majorityof original features and materials thatconveythe significantdesignshould remainextant. Due tothe factthat manyLate Modernistproperties are stillconsidered partof the “recentpast” and relativelylittle time has passed sincetheir construction, propertieseligibleunderCriterion C/3are expectedtoretainahigh degreeofintegrityof designand materials. Still,minorchanges suchas installationof securitygates orreplacementgarage doors or in-kind window replacements are unlikelytoaffectoverallintegrity,unless otherminorchanges accumulate to resultina loss of integrityof designormaterials. Integrityof locationis expected forindividuallyeligible Late Modernistproperties.Inanurbanenvironment suchas SanFrancisco,itis expected thatthe broad setting and nearbyproperties willchange overtime;changes tothe area surrounding a propertyare generallyunlikelytobe a factorinevaluating late twentiethcenturyproperties underCriterionC/3.
89. Cathedralof St.Mary of theAssumption (1111 Gough Street,1967-71,Pier LuigiNervi,Pietro Belluschi, JohnMichaelLee,PaulA.Ryan,andAngusMcSweeney) isoneofthemosticonic buildingsin San Francisco and isan excellentexampleof theExpressionistmodeof LateModernism.Thebuilding appearsto beeligible underCriterionC/3.Theplaza and main interior space, including featuressuch astheparabolic concretepiers, organ,ceiling,andstainedglass, arealso significant.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
90. ChristUnitedPresbyterian Church (1700Sutter Street,1975,WayneOsaki) isa moremodestexpression ofLateModernistarchitecture,which woodshinglesand shed-roofedclerestory windows.Thischurch doesnot riseto thelevelofindividualsignificance under Criterion C/3asan exampleof LateModernistarchitecture. Additionalresearch on architectOsakiisrequired.
(Source: GoogleMaps,2023)
Fig.
Fig.
Fig. 91. Levi’sPlaza (1105Battery Street,1981,HOK,Arthur Gensler,andLawrence Halprin),inclusiveof theoffice buildinganddesignedlandscape,isoneofthemostsignificantexamplesofLateModernist landscapedesign in San Francisco.Thecomplexrespondstothecontextofthesurroundingneighborhoodofhistoricbrickwarehouses,while expressing a highly geometric andrepeating Modernistform. Theproperty wasvery popular with both occupants andthepublic, andwaswidelypublishedasanexampleofcontextualModernism andurbanism,thepossibilitiesof adaptivereuse,andexceptionallandscapedesign.Fewmajor alterationshavebeen madeto either thebuilding or thelandscape(including both the‘HardPark’plaza or the‘SoftPark’).Paintedsupergraphicsaddedto thebrick buildingcladdingc.2023arenotcompatiblewith theoriginaldesignorbrickmaterialbutdonotsignificantlyimpact integrityofdesignormaterials.However,theLevi’sPlazacomplexiseligibleunderCaliforniaRegisterCriterion3and appearslikelyto meetthe“exceptionalsignificance”threshold(CriterionG)for significanceunder NationalRegister Criterion C. (Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 92. Theofficebuildingsat75HawthornePlaza (leftphoto,foreground) and680Folsom Street(leftphoto, background)arebothexamplesofLateModernistarchitecture;thearchitectof 75HawthornePlaza isunknown and 680FolsomStreetwasdesignedby John Carl Warnecke& Associates.Both buildingshavesincebeen altered(right photo).680FolsomStreetwascompletelyreskinnedinaglasscurtainwallin2013,and75HawthornePlazahasbeen alteredwithadditionalwindowopeningsandreplacementwindows.Whileboth hadsometypicalcharacteristicsof LateModernism,neitherbuildingwasanexceptionalexampleofLateModernismasoriginallydesigned,andassuch wouldnotlikely meetthesignificancethresholdsfor individual eligibility under Criterion C/3. Furthermore,both buildingsnowlackhistoricintegrityastheirLateModernistfeatureshaveeither been completely removed,asin the caseof680FolsomStreet,orsubstantially altered,asin thecaseof 75HawthornePlaza.Whilein-kindreplacement windowsmay notimpactoverallintegrity,changing thesizeandposition of windowopeningsandreplacing windowswith newwindowtypeshasasignificantimpactontheoveralldesignofaLateModernistfaçadesuch as75 HawthornePlaza. (Source:SFPL,History Center,SFH371 (left).GoogleMaps,2023(right).)
Corporate Late Modernismis a sub-theme of the Late Modernistarchitecture theme.Corporate Late Modernism is anevolution of corporate Modernistarchitecture thatbegins inthe 1960s indowntownSanFrancisco.Bythe 1960s,manyof the firstgenerationof EuropeanModernists had died orretired,and the firstgenerationof San FranciscoModernists were reaching a late period of theirowncareers. Modernismwas evolving awayfromthe pure minimalismand functionalismof the International Style and Miesianprecedents and beginning todiverge into newdirections.Bythe1970s,critics suchasCharles Jencks were declaring the “deathof Modernism,”which became a popularrefrainforpractitioners and supporters of architecturalPostmodernism.Itis throughthis lens thatthe period of the late 1960s throughthe 1970s has alsobeendescribed as a “decline”of Modernism.188 However,as previouslynoted,ratherthandescribing this period as a decline from “high”or“orthodox” Modernism,the Late Modernistperiod can alsobe seenas anevolutionof Modernism
Fig. 93. TheTransamerica Pyramid(600Montgomery Street) was completedin 1972andisoneof themostsignificantexamplesof CorporateLateModernism in San Francisco.Ithaspreviously been determinedto bean individually eligiblehistoric resource.The buildingwasdesignedby William Pereira & Associateswith Gin Wong servingasprojectarchitect.Whilethebuilding hasa uniqueshape,it expressescommon CorporateLateModernistfeaturesin itshighly repetitive fenestration,precastpanelcladding,andcorporateplaza. Thebuilding iscurrently undergoing renovation to thelobby,plaza, andlower interior levels.
(Source:WayneThom,photographer,1972.)
While there are distinctive and notable examples of Corporate Late Modernism,factors ranging fromthe 1970s energycrisis and stagflationtotechnologicalchanges and increases inconstructioncosts,the economic incentives forcorporatedeveloperspushedtheaveragehigh-risedesigntoward cheapermaterials,standardized designs,and less experimentation.Inotherwords,one mightbe able topointtoa loweraverage qualityin Corporate Late Modernistdesigncompared tomid-centuryCorporate Modernism,butthere are stilldynamic and interesting explorations inthe late twentiethcentury,including some of the city’s mosticonicdowntown high-rises among them,Bankof America World Headquarters (555 California Street,1967-9),Transamerica Pyramid(600MontgomeryStreet,1972),and EmbarcaderoCenter(1-5 EmbarcaderoCenter,1971-1981).During the late 1960s and 1970s,downtownoffice and hotel high-rises became noticeablylargerthanthose thathad beenconstructed inthe 1950s and early1960s,and the rapid rate of downtowndevelopmentraised concerns amongst some sectors of the SanFranciscopublic.Fears overthe “Manhattanization”of the city’s skyline led to anti-high-rise protestsandcampaigns,asdiscussedingreaterdetailinthe HistoricContext:SanFranciscoin the Late 20th Centurysectionof this document.Of course, the Transamerica Pyramid,whichwas a majortouchstone
188 Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement,143-4.
of the anti-high-rise protests,is now aniconicand beloved feature of the SanFranciscoskyline,althoughthe publicsentimenttoward otherlate twentiethcentury high-rises is more ambivalent(Fig. 93) 189
Among the primary distinctive characteristics of Corporate Late Modernismis exaggeration oftenachieved through repeatingfenestrationandcladdingpatterns.Jencks hasdescribedLateModernismastaking“the ideas and forms of the ModernMovementtoanextreme,exaggerating the structure and technologicalimage of the building inits attempttoprovide amusement,oraestheticpleasure” (Fig. 94).190 Inparta reactiontothe proliferationof Miesianstyle high-rises manyof whichdid notstand up tothe rigorand qualityof Mies as well as practicalconcerns suchas materialcost,building efficiency,and the desire tomaximize site development potential,CorporateLateModernist high-rises inSanFranciscoalsohavea much more massiveand heavyvisual qualitytothemwhencompared withearliersteeland glass Modernisttowers like CrownZellerbach Headquarters.The visualweightof the buildings is oftencreated bothbythe sheersize of the buildings,as well as the visualdominance of repeating cladding panels oftenprecastconcrete,caststone,orgranite.Many Corporate Late Modernisthigh-rises alsoutilized smallerwindows,oftendue tocostand efficiencyconcerns, whichcould be disguised withdarkorreflective glass.
Fig.94.ThevisualmassivenessoftheBankofAmericaHeadquarters(555CaliforniaStreet,1969) isduein partto its siting on a hill,aswell asitssheer bulkanddark,polishedgranitecladding.Heretheexaggeratedrepetition of triangular bay formsandthelackof windowarticulation (thedarkglassisnearly thesamecolor asthegranite cladding)createthe“aestheticpleasure”describedby Jencks.A notableexampleof CorporateLateModernism,the buildingwasacollaborativedesignbyWurster,Bernardi&Emmons;Skidmore,Owings&Merrill;andPietroBelluschi (picturedleft) withaplazadesignbyLawrenceHalprinandfeaturingtheartwork Transcendence (1973) by Masayuki Nagare(picturedright)
SanFranciscodoes nothave manyfullexpressions of the “slicktech”lookof mirrored glass thatwas popularin places like SouthernCalifornia and Texas,including inmore suburbanoffice centers 191 The “glass skin”effectis perhaps mostfullyexpressed in101 California Street (1982,Johnson&Burgee withEliAttia,projectarchitect) (Fig. 95).425 California Street(1968,JohnCarlWarnecke) and 211 MainStreet(1973,CorwinBooth) bothhave dark,reflective glass skins (Fig. 96).192
95.
Modernist,butthebaseismorePostmodernist.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
96.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Corporate LateModernismextendstoaboutthemid-1980sinSanFrancisco,generallypredating the adoptionof the 1985 DowntownPlanand codificationof publicartand privatelyowned publicopenspace (POPOS) requirements.However,the precedentforinclusionof corporate plazas and publicartwas established inthis earlierperiod,withthese features being included whethervoluntarilyoras means of negotiating density bonuses;A.P.GianniniPlaza (555 California Street, 1969,Lawrence Halprin),Transamerica Redwood Park(600 MontgomeryStreet, 1974,AnthonyGuzzardo),and EmbarcaderoCenter(approximately $5 millionpublicart programwithvarious artists and extensive publicplaza network)are notable pre-DowntownPlanexamples. RefertoThe PublicRealm:CulturalInstitutions,Waterfront,POPOS&PublicArt sub-sectionofHistoricContext:
191 Jencks, Late-Modern Architecture, 8.
192 Cityof LosAngeles, “Architecture and Engineering/LA Modernism/Late Modern, 1966-1990,” SurveyLACitywideHistoric ContextStatement(July2020); OuidaAngelica Biddle, “AShort History of theMirrored GlassFaçade,” PIN-UP 17 (FallWinter 2014),accessedonline, February13,2024, https://archive.pinupmagazine.org/articles/panorama-a-short-history-of-the-mirrored-glass-facade-buildings-ouida-biddle
Dark,reflectiveglassisusedin thisCorporate LateModernistbuilding at425California Street(1968) by John CarlWarnecke& Associates.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
San Francisco inthe Late20th Century inthis documentforadditionalinformationaboutPOPOSand publicart, as wellas Historic Context: Late Twentieth Century Landscape Architecture 193
Due tothe scale of the commissions,Corporate Late Modernistbuildings tend tobe bylarger,established firms. Practitioners associated withCorporate Late Modernisminclude,butare notlimited to (alphabetical):Welton Becket&Associates;CorwinBooth;GinWong &Associates;Hertzka &Knowles; WilliamL.Pereira &Associates; John Portman &Associates; Skidmore,Owings &Merrill(SOM);and JohnCarlWarnecke &Associates (Fig. 97Fig.100).Inparticular, Skidmore,Owings&Merrillturned out SanFrancisco high-risesata prolificrate,designing atleast15 majoroffice and hotelprojects constructed between1969 and 1980 before theirpractice shifted into the newlypopularPostmodernmode.194
Fig. 97. San Francisco downtown skylineon a 1985cover of Architecture California,depicting a cluster of CorporateLateModernist buildingslookingwestfromtheFerry Building,including:HyattRegency Hotel(1973,John Portman),Mutal BenefitLife(OneCalifornia Street, 1969,Welton Becket& Associates);50 California Street(1972,Welton Becket& Associates);333Market Street(1980,Gin Wong & Associates); ShakleeTerrace(OneFrontStreet, 1980,Skidmore,Owings& Merrill); 101California Street(1980,Johnson & Burgee);andPacific InsuranceCo. Building (100PineStreet,1972, Hertzka & Knowles).
(Source: Architecture California 7,no. 6(November/December 1985), cover.)
193 Additional sources include: Public Art, Monuments& Murals Historic Context Statement (inprogress);andPage& Turnbull, San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory Findings Report (prepared forSanFrancisco ArtsCommission, January2024).
Fig.100.EmbarcaderoCenter(19711981) by John Portman & Associates includesan extensivepublic art collectionandnetworkofplazasand pedestrian bridges.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
195 “Oneof thebestexamplesin SanFrancisco of urbanarchitecture in theModern idiom.” Michael R.Corbett, CharlesHall Page & Associates,Foundation forSanFrancisco’s Architectural Heritage, Splendid Survivors (SanFrancisco: California Living Books,1979),168.
CorporateLateModernism Evaluation Criteria
HistoricContextStatement
Statementof Significance:
CorporateLateModernism evolvedin thelate1960sasoneresponseto theorthodoxy of Modernism,particularly theproliferation of Miesian-stylehigh-rises. Among theexamples ofCorporateLateModernisminthelatetwentieth century aresomeof themosticonic and prominentbuildingsin San Francisco,designedby internationally renownedarchitects includingSkidmore,Owings&Merrill,WilliamPereira,JohnPortman,andothers.Oneofthe primary distinguishing characteristicsof CorporateLateModernism in San Francisco isa senseofvisualandstructuralexaggeration oftenachievedthrough repeating fenestration andcladdingpatterns,orthrough façadearticulation. CorporateLateModernisthigh-rises in San Francisco also havea much moremassiveandheavy visualquality,distinctfrom orthodoxModernism,andareflectionoflatecapitalistsocioeconomicconditions,including high construction costs,an energy crisis,stagflation,andpressureto maximize developmenton limitedavailabledowntown sites. Although predating codified requirementsin the1985Downtown Plan,many of thesignificantexamplesof Corporate LateModernism includeplazasor public artwork.
Significantexamplesof CorporateLateModernist architecturetypically display a full and distinctiveexpression of thestyle,drawing from thecharacter-defining featuresoutlined below.Significantexamplesof CorporateLateModernistarchitectureincludeofficeand hotelhigh-risesandwilllikely beparticularly notableexamplesof theworkof an Architect ofMeritorprominentfirm OtherLateModernistarchitectureassociatedwith smaller scale commercialarchitecture,including officebuildings,retail,etc. shouldbeevaluatedunder theTheme:LateModernismframeworkandevaluationcriteria.Duetotherelatively recent constructionofCorporateLateModernistbuildings,eligibleexamplesareexpectedto have a high degreeof integrity,although somealterationsmay haveoccurredto the building lobby or plaza.
PeriodofSignificance: Late1960s-Early 1980s
JustificationofPeriodof Significance:
Theperiodof significancefrom thelate1960sto theearly 1980sreflectstheyearsthat CorporateLateModernismwaspopularinSanFrancisco.By thelate1960s,corporateoffice andhotelbuildingshadshiftedfrom high to lateModernism.By themid-1980s, Postmodernism wasthedominantform of corporatedowntown high-risearchitecture.
GeographicBoundaries: Northeastquadrant.PrimarilyintheFinancialDistrict,includingsouthofMarketStreet,and Downtown/Civic Center aroundUnion Square.
Aproperty may be considered aneligible resource underCriterionC/3 if itmeets the following:
• Constructed during the period of significance (late 1960s toearly1980s)and if relevant,meets criterion considerations forproperties of the recentpast;referto“RecentPast&Considerations forResources Less than50 Years Old”inthe Introduction of this report.
• Significantexamples of Corporate Late Modernismthatmayqualifyas eligible historic resources willbe excellentordistinctive expressions of Corporate Late Modernism Comparative analysis withother contemporaneous examples of Corporate Late Modernismis importanttounderstanding whetherthe propertymayrise toa levelof significance foreligibilityunderCriterionC/3.
• Mustretaincharacter-defining features and have highlevels of integrity,particularlyintegrityof design, materials,and workmanship.
• Properties thatinclude anoriginal,associated publicartworkand/ordesigned landscape,including residentialgardens,corporate plazas,and institutionalgrounds,should be evaluated comprehensively. Inother words,the landscape and/orpublicartshould be evaluated as partof the overalldesignof the propertyand factored intoconsiderations of significance and integrity,and identificationof characterdefining features.
o The presence of extantsupergraphics (whetherdesigned bythe building architectoranother artist) maybeconsideredacharacter-definingfeatureof aCorporate Late Modernistproperty,or mayhave significance as a workof designintheir ownright.Extantenvironmental-scale supergraphics fromthe late twentiethcenturyappeartobe rare inSanFrancisco.
o Insome cases,apublicartwork and/ordesignedlandscape mayalsorise toa levelof individual significance.Referalsotothe evaluative frameworks infollowing historiccontextstatements: Public Art, Monuments & Murals (inprogress)and Landscapes (1848 -1989) (planned).
• Otherconsiderations:
o Properties designed orconstructed byan ArchitectorBuilderof Merit,particularlyif the resource is a rare orexceptionalexample of the architectorbuilder’s workinSanFrancisco, should be considered. MostCorporate Late Modernistarchitecture was designed byprominent and prolificlocaland nationalarchitectural firms,manyof whomhave alreadybeenrecognized as architects orfirms of merit.Thus,buildings thatare individuallyeligible fortheirassociation witha particular architector firmshould be particularlynotable examples of thatarchitect’s work,demonstrating orexpressing a particularphase of theircareerora particulartheme or idea.Allbuildings byanArchitectof Meritwillnotautomaticallybe eligible as historicresources. Refertothe Evaluation Frameworkin Architecture, Planning, & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies forfurtherinformation.
o ApropertymayalsoqualifyunderCriterionC/3 as a contributortoa historicdistrictif itis situated withina geographicallycohesive grouping of buildings related bydesignor byan architector developer.Inordertomeetlocal,state,and/ornationalregistrationrequirements as a district,a majorityof contributing properties would need toretainmostof theircharacterdefining features.Generally,contributors toa historicdistrict need notmeetas higha threshold forintegrityas individualbuildings.
▪ Corporate Late Modernistbuildings are concentrated inthe FinancialDistrictand Union Squareareas butare generallyinterspersed withbotholderand newerbuildings.Thus, itis unlikely thatagrouping of CorporateLateModernistbuildingswould beeligibleasa historic districtonly forassociationwiththeirCorporate Late Modernistarchitectural style underCriterion C/3.
Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features of Corporate Late Modernistproperties significantunderCriterionC/3 are those elements thatrepresentits significant designqualities relative toits date of construction.The following are anticipated character-defining features of a significant Corporate Late Modernistproperties underCriterionC/3:
• Rectangularmassing and steel-frame constructionare typical,butsome examples have stepped massing.
• Flatroofs withnooverhang orarticulated cornice
• Highlyrepetitive fenestration.
• Verticalityis oftenemphasized.
• Generally,everyfloorabove the ground floorhas the same orsimilarappearance and willinclude flexible interiorspaces and climate-controlled environments.
• Common cladding materials are precastconcrete panels orotherprefabricated panels;dark,opaque or mirrored glass;or,insome cases,stone.
• Full-height window systems are typicalatthe ground floorand mayinclude retailspaces. Bronze anodized aluminumorotherdarkmetalframing is commonforstorefront window systems.
• Buildings appearmore massive and withheaviermaterials thanearlierCorporate Modernism.
• Buildings maybe setbackona designed plaza orbuiltouttolotlines.
• Plaza paving materialis oftencarried partiallyorfullyintothe lobby interiorbutmaytransition from rough topolished intexture. Plaza paving mayalsodelineate private and publicorsemi-publicspaces.
Apropertyeligible underCriterionC/3 should retainthe majorityof its aspects of integritydating tothe period whenthe significantdesignwas completed,withanemphasis onintegrityof design,materials,and workmanship. The building’s significantdesignqualities should remainreadilyapparent,and the majorityof original features and materials thatconveythe significantdesignshould remainextant. Giventhe prevalence of Corporate Late Modernistproperties and the factthatsome are less than45 years old,individuallyeligible properties should retaina highlevelof integrity.
Significantalterations to exteriorcladdingand windowopenings are not typicalbutmaybecome more common inthe future. Replacementof windowsystems should be considered whenevaluating forintegrityof designand materials;however,in-kind replacementof window systems thatretainthe visualcharacterof the building may not resultinanoverallloss of integrity.Alterations tooffice and hotellobbies and plazas are common.Original designand materials of publiclyaccessible lobbies and plazas,including publicartwork, cancontribute tothe overallcharacterof a Corporate Late Modernistbuilding.The loss of anoriginallobby,particularlyif alterations are primarilylimited tointerior spaces,is unlikelytodiminishoverallintegritytothe pointof ineligibility. However,cumulative alterations tofeatures suchas lobbies,ground floorwindows and storefronts,plazas, publicartwork, and otherfeatures mayresultina lackof integrity.
Integrityof location is expected forindividuallyeligible Corporate Late Modernistproperties.Inanurban environment suchas SanFrancisco,itis expected thatthe broad setting and nearbyproperties willchange over time;changestothe area surrounding a propertyare generallyunlikelytobe a factorinevaluating late twentieth centuryproperties underCriterionC/3.
Fig. 101. ShakleeTerrace(now,OneFrontStreet,also known as444MarketStreet),wasdesignedby Skidmore,Owings& Merrill(SOM) andcompletedin 1980.ThebuildingexpressesCorporateLateModernism in itssmooth,slickfaçadeplaneandhighly repeating pattern of fenestration,andtheuniquely undulating façadeprofile.Thebuilding isa distinctiveexampleof CorporateLateModernism in San Francisco andis notablewithintheportfolio of SOM,which isoneof the mostprolificfirmstobuilddowntown.Thebuilding has alterationsto thelobby interiors,butexterior materials andfeatures,including atthegroundfloor,areintact. Thereissufficienttimeandscholarly perspectiveto understandthebuilding within thecontextof downtownSanFranciscodevelopmentandtheworkof SOM.Assuch,theproperty appearsto beeligibleasa historic resourceunder Criterion C/3.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 102. MutalBenefitLife(OneCalifornia Street,1969) by Welton Becket& Associateswith Royston,Hanamoto, Beck&Abey.Thebuildingexpressesthecharacteristicsof CorporateLateModernistarchitecturethrough highly repeating fenestration,verticalemphasis,andprecast panelcladding.Thebuilding has bulky,rectangular massing andan associatedone-story bank.Welton Becketisa recognized Architectof Meritin Southern California andbuiltseveralbuildingsin San Francisco. However,thisproperty,completedthesameyear of Becket’sdeath,isnotdistinctivewithinhiscareer or even hisworkinSanFrancisco.Thedesignisfairlygeneric and similartomanyotherCorporateLateModernistbuildings in San Francisco andelsewhere.Assuch,theproperty doesnotappear to beindividually eligibleunder Criterion C/3.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Sub-Theme: Brutalism(1960s-mid-1980s)
Brutalismis a strainof Late Modernistarchitecture thatis characterized firstand foremostbyits mosttypical material exposed concrete and the term“brutalism”is generallyunderstood tobe derived fromthe French béton brut, meaning “raw concrete.”Brutalistbuildings canbe of concrete construction,utilizing poured-in-place (or“board-formed”)concrete withthe wood grainand/orties of wood formworkleftexposed,waffle slab floors, and/orprecastconcrete,orcanbe steel-frame construction withexposed concrete atthe exterior.Brutalist architecture is alsocharacterized byits form,whichtends tobe massive,geometric,and expressive often interior featuresorusesarelegibleatthe exterior massing. Refer to the Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970) for more on Brutalism. 196
InSanFrancisco, Brutalist architecture is mostclosely associated withinstitutionalproperties,especially educationaland medicalinstitutions, and infrastructure buildings (Fig. 103 and Fig. 104).Anumberof San FranciscoUnified SchoolDistrict publicschoolbuildings were designed inthe Brutaliststyle,including San FranciscoInternational HighSchool (655 De HaroStreet,c.1969,CorwinBooth)and McAteerHighSchool(555 Portola Drive,1972,Reid&Tarics),and severalbuilding atSanFranciscoState University(SFSU)(Fig. 105).Other examples of Brutalismassociated withhighereducationinclude the additiontoSFAIbyPaffard Keatinge-Clay, and GoldenGate University(540 MissionStreet,1978,WilliamD.Podestoand T.Y.Lin),whichis a unique expressionofbrickBrutalism(Fig.106andFig.107).SanFrancisco’s twoabove-ground BARTstations GlenPark and Balboa Park are bothBrutalist,and the PG&EEmbarcaderoSubstationrepresents anextreme expression of Brutalism,where a lackof windows and its massive formcreate a bunker-like quality(Fig. 108).Diamond Heightshasa fullyexpressedBrutalistfire station,and smallerscale Brutalistinfrastructure canbe found insome publicparks like John McLarenParkinthe formof bathrooms,lookout towers,and amphitheaters (Fig. 109 and Fig. 110).
& Patterson.
Patterson with Roselyn Lindheim.(Source:Page& Turnbull).
Page& Turnbull).
196 Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement, 138,201-3.Despitearesurgentinterestin Brutalism, many books onthesubject tendto beprimarily photography books with limited historic context ortheory and/or arefocused onaspecific architect such asPaul Rudolph oron ahighly specific region. Akeyearlytexttheorizing Brutalism, thenreferredtoasthe‘New Brutalism,’ is Reyner Banham’s The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? (NewYork:Reinhold, 1966),although whatiscurrently understood and defined asBrutalismis somewhat differentthanBanham’sNewBrutalism, which encompassed moreof LateModernism and High-Tech architecture. Simon Henley hasalso observed thatBanham’stextwasoverly preoccupied withthework of the Smithsons and puts thebook and thelargerdevelopment of Brutalism in context in Redefining Brutalism (Newcastleupon Tyne,UK: RIBAPublishing, 2017).
Fig. 109. FireStation No.26(80Digby Street,1963) by Rockrise& Watson.(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 110. SoutheastCommunity Facility (1800Oakdale Avenue,1983-86) by Jefferson AssociatesandJan Lubicz-Nycz.(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
Brutalismis less commonlyfound downtown,as mostlate twentiethcentury high-rise offices and hotels inSan Franciscoare Late ModernorPostmodern.Anotable exceptionis the HiltonHotel (750 Kearny,1971,Clement Chen&Associates,T.Y.Lin),originallya HolidayInn,atPortsmouthSquare. Examples of Brutalistarchitecture in single-familyhomes orduplexes inSanFrancisco,if anyexist,are exceedinglyrare.Some examples of Brutalist multi-family housing complexes doexist,butmostare associated withseniororassisted living facilities,suchas Woodside Gardens (255 Woodside Avenue,1962,NeillSmith)and the Annex Aadditiontothe JewishHome for the Aged (302 SilverAvenue,1969,Howard Friedman).One notable example is the 2000 Broadwayapartment building (1974,BackenArrigoni&Ross (BAR)),whichhas exposed,raw concrete exteriors withvisible formwork tie holes,articulated floorplates,and expressive and sculpturalmassing (Fig. 113).
Mostknown examples of Brutalistarchitecture inSanFranciscowere builtinthe 1960s and 1970s.Alaterknown exampleisthe SoutheastCommunity Facility at1800OakdaleAvenueinBayview,built 1983-86,anddesignedby JanLubicz-Nycz(Fig.110).197 Additionalresearchandsurveyeffortsmayidentifymore examples fromthe 1980s.
197 John King,“Brutalismlooks betterwith age,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 3,2013;andJanLubicz-Nycz Collection (notyet cataloged),San Francisco Public Library,History Center.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
BrutalismEvaluation Criteria
Statementof Significance:
RefertotheBrutalismEvaluationFrameworkinthe Modern ArchitectureHCS (1935-1970) for a statementof significance,character-defining features,evaluation criteria,andintegrity thresholds.
Note of clarification to the Modern Architecture HCS (1935-1970): Whileconcreteasa construction methodor key exterior materialarekey characteristicsof Brutalism,notall buildingswith concreteattheexterior areBrutalist somearebetter understoodand describedasLateModernist.In particular,buildingswith modular precastconcreteor aggregatepanelcladding,highly repetitiveor regular fenestration,andmoresimple rectangularorboxyforms,shouldbeevaluatedasLateModernistbuildings.Somebuildings thatweredescribedintheModernArchitectureHCS (1935-1970) asBrutalistwouldbebetter describedandevaluatedasexamplesofLateModernism,including:FoxPlaza(VictorGruen), TransamericaPyramid(WilliamPereira),andtheSchoolofDentistryinPacificHeights(SOM). With regardsto integrity,itshouldalso benotedthatpainting originally exposedconcrete exteriorsofBrutalistbuildingscansubstantiallydiminish their integrity of materials,design, andworkmanship.Exposedconcrete,including thevisualandphysicaltextureandcolor,is oneof themostimportantcharacter-defining featuresof Brutalism.Painting theoriginal concretewouldhavea major negativeeffecton thecharacter of a Brutalistbuilding.
198 Theperiodof significancefor theModern ArchitectureHCS (1935-1970) documentendedin 1970,butacknowledgedthatBrutalism wasbuiltin San Francisco through the mid-1980s.
198 Theseexamples include, but arenotlimited to:San Francisco ArtInstitute Addition (1966-70,PaffardKeatinge-Clay),Hilton Hotel atPortsmouth Square (1971,ClementChen,et.al.),CMPC Pacific Heights (1972,StoneMarraccini & Patterson), GlenPark BARTStation (1973,ErnestBornand Corlett+ Spackman), and SanFrancisco StateUniversity Student Center(1969-75,PaffardKeatinge-Clay).
PropertyType Description(s):
Brutalism ismostfrequently utilizedin institutionalproperty types, including educational andmedical,aswellastransportationandinfrastructureproperties.Commercialandmultifamily residentialpropertiesarelesscommon.
Fig. 111. TheHilton Hotel(750Kearny Street,1971, ClementChen,T.Y.Lin) exemplifiesBrutalistarchitecture through itsexposedconcreteexterior,which has evidenceof thewood grain from theboardformwork. Furthermore,themassing issculpturaland reflects interior programing with a wider basefor thelobby, restaurant,andChineseCulturalCenter,anda narrow shaftfor thestandardhotelrooms.Thecirculation core isalso expressed.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 112. Fox Plaza (1390MarketStreet,1967,Victor Gruen&AssociateswithNormaMerrickSklarek)isbetter describedasLateModernist,andnotBrutalist.Although thebuilding hasconcreteattheexterior,itisa smooth concretewithouttherawnesstypically associatedwith Brutalism.Furthermore,themassing andfenestration arethatofatypicalLateModernist high-rise,with a very regular gridof windowsandbalconies,andsimple rectangular massing.
(Source:Page& Turnbull,2024.)
Fig. 113. 2000Broadway apartmentbuilding (1974, Backen Arrigoni& Ross(BAR)),which hasexposed,raw concreteexteriorswith visibleformworktieholes, articulatedfloorplates,andexpressiveandsculptural massing. BARisa notablelocalfirm thatwasactive duringthelatetwentieth century.Although multi-family Brutalistcomplexesarevery common elsewhere, especially in theU.K.andeastern Europe,thisisa rare anduniqueexamplein San Francisco.Thebuilding embodiesthedistinctivecharacteristicsof Brutalist architecture,appearsto havegoodintegrity,and appearsto beeligibleasa historic resource.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 114. Thecross-plan Annex A addition to theJewish Homefor the Agedcampus(302Silver Avenue) was builtin 1969,designedby HowardA. Friedman.Thebuilding haselementsof Brutalism including board-formed concreteexteriors,aswellassome brick.Circulation coresareexpressedat thesidesandendsof thecrossplan. However,thebuilding lacksthemore expressiveandsculpturalqualitiesof form andmassing associatedwith the bestexamplesof Brutalism.This buildingdoesnotappearlikely to riseto thelevelofindividualsignificanceasan exampleof Brutalistarchitecture.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
Fig.115.TheSFSUStudentCenter(1600HollowayAvenue,1969-75,PaffardKeatinge-Clay),shown atleftsoon after completion. Thebuilding nowhasan addition attheformer roof deckthatisnotparticularly compatiblewith the originaldesign.However,thestrength andclarity of theoriginaldesign remain legible,andmostof theoriginal exterior materialsandfeatures,including theconcreteexterior,massiveenamelpanelpivotdoors,concrete downspouts,concretestairways,projectingpyramid(housinga study area),andtheprojecting stadium seating,all remain.Giventhesignificanceof PaffardKeatinge-Clay asan architect,andthisbuilding asa unique expression of Brutalism in San Francisco,thebuilding appearsto have sufficientintegrity to an eligiblehistoric resource.
NewFormalismisa sub-theme of the historiccontext statementtheme of Late Modernism.The style,sometimes known as Neo-Formalism,emerged inthe United States inthe mid-1950s as a Moderninterpretationof Classicism.199 New Formalismrepresents one of manystrains of Modernismthatevolved inthe late twentieth centuryasthe stark,unornamented orthodoxy of Modernismbegantofeelstale,especiallyasderivativeforms of Modernismbecame increasinglypervasive,mundane, and corporate. Architects MinoruYamasaki,Edward Durrell Stone,and Philip Johnson, in particular,pioneered and developed the New Formaliststyle betweenthe 1950sand1970s.Whileallwere,themselves,adherentsto the InternationalStyle and MiesianModernismintheir earlycareers,these architects broughtrefined Classicalforms,symmetry,and restrained ornamentbackinto Moderndesign.Althoughthese architects are among the mostprolificand best-knownAmericanarchitects of the mid-tolate-twentiethcentury,some of theirdie-hard Modernistcontemporaries scoffed atNew Formalism and its levelof delicate ornamentation 200 Manyof the iconicworks of New Formalismhave since beenmore widelyaccepted as some of the bestworks of civicand institutionalarchitecture fromthe era.
California architects whoalsoembraced New Formalisminclude WeltonBecket,Charles Luckman,William Pereira,and JohnCarlWarnecke,althoughthe style is evidentmore intheirworkoutside of SanFrancisco, particularly inSouthern California.Notable nationalexamples of the style include:New DelhiAmericanEmbassy (India,1955-58,Edward DurrellStone), Stanford UniversityMedicalCenter(1955,Edward DurrellStone), United States Science Pavilionforthe Seattle World’s Fair(Seattle,1962,MinoruYamasaki),and HawaiiState Capitol (1965-69,JohnCarlWarneke) (Fig. 116 and Fig. 117).
(Source: NationalArchives(NARA).)
(Source:Architectuul.com.)
The New Formaliststyle is,as the name suggests,anelevated,refined,and oftenmonumentalstyle,utilizing prestige materials and generous plazas and fountains. Characteristics include flat,projecting roof planes,strict
199 Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement,134.
200 In thecatalog essayforthe“Transformations inModern Architecture” exhibit attheMOMA,Arthur Drexlerobserves, “Because theyaresothin such columns [flaredattop andbottom] tend tolook likecongealed taffythathasdripped fromtheunderside of theattic story.This effectisdisliked by mostarchitects but isoftenappreciated bylaymen, whocorrectly interpret softcurves assignaling asiretoplease.” Arthur Drexler, Transformations in Modern Architecture,118-9.
Fig.116.NewDelhiAmericanEmbassy(1955-58)inIndia by EdwardDurrellStone.
Fig. 117. HawaiiStateCapitol(1965-69) in Honolulu by SanFrancisco-basedarchitectJohn CarlWarneckewith localarchitectsBelt,Lemmon,andLo.
symmetry,and expressed arches orcolumns. 201 As such,nationally,the style is mostoftenused forcivic buildings,culturalinstitutions, and public-facing educationalbuildings suchas conference centers.The New Formalist style has alsofrequentlybeenadapted forbanks whichhave long used the features of Classical architecture toconveytradition and stabilityinbanking temples.WithsmallerNew Formalistbanks,more affordablematerialssuchasconcrete and lesselaborateornamentationmaybeused.The New Formaliststyle is rarely,if ever,utilizedforsingle-family residencesorduplexes,andtypicallynotassociated withtransportationor infrastructure properties.202
118.JohnHancockBuilding(alsoknown asMutual LifeInsuranceCompany,or IndustrialIndemnity Building)at255CaliforniaStreetwasdesignedbyChuck Bassettof SOMin 1959.OverallModernistin character, thebuilding hassomefeaturesthatwouldlater be associatedwith NewFormalism,including a tripartite configuration,archedpodium base,andpolished granitecladding.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
119. TheDonatello Hotel
Street,1969, Mario Gaidano, architect,andByron Niskian,engineer) exhibitsfeaturesof NewFormalism,including ornamentalconcretepanels,emphasizedverticality,and aprojectingflatroof.Theexterior materialsareprimarily concretewith travertineplantersatthebase.The building mightbestbedescribedasLateModernistwith influencesof NewFormalism.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
SanFranciscolacks anymonumental examples of New Formalistcivicorinstitutionalarchitecture; rather,the New Formaliststyle is quite rare and mostoftenused forbanks,including Home Savings &LoanAssociation branchbanks,whichare discussed inmore detailbelow.Some early1960s branchbanks exhibitfeatures
201 Robinson & Associates, Growth, Efficiency and Modernism: GSA Buildings of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s,(Washington,D.C.:U.S.GeneralServices Administration, Officeof theChief Architect, CenterforHistoric Buildings, 2005),14.
202 Averyrareexample of aNewFormalistsingle-family residence istheBeck House (1964) byPhilip Johnson in Dallas,Texas.Johnson also designed a lakepavilion folly (1962)athisGlassHouseestateinNewCanaan, Connecticut inthe NewFormalist style.
Fig.
Fig.
(501Post
CitywideHistoricContextStatement San
associatedwithNewFormalism,suchasarchedwindowsoranarcade entrance,butare otherwise modest,and lackthe monumental qualityand prestige materials typicallyassociated withNew Formalism.Insome cases, suchas the branchbanks (now bothUSBankbranchlocations)at4610 MissionStreetand 4947 MissionStreet, the overalldesignof the building is Late Modernist,witha few features thatare alsoassociated withNew Formalism.Additionally,the New Formaliststyle has beenused foratleastone movie theater(UAStonestown TwinTheater, 501 BuckinghamWay,1970,George K.Raad),and severalmid-and high-rise medical,office,and hotelbuildings (Fig. 118 and Fig. 119).Knownexamples of the New Formaliststyle inSanFranciscodate tothe 1960s and 1970s.
MillardSheets StudioandHome Savings & Loan Association
Artist Millard Sheets (1907-1989) established his business in1953 underthe name Millard Sheets Designs,Inc. (later,Millard Sheets &Associates Designs,Inc.)as anatelier-style studioinSouthernCalifornia 203 Althoughhe wasnot,himself,a trained orlicensed architect,Sheets begana fruitfuland prolificcollaborationwithHoward F. Ahmanson in1955,designing Home Savings &LoanAssociationbranchbanks throughoutthe Southern California region,and laterinthe BayArea.204 Sheets designed atleast80 Home Savings branchbanks,and historian AdamArensonhas identified atleast168 Home Savings locations thatcontainartworkfromSheets’s studio,and another159 otherprojects withpubliclyaccessible artworks,including churches,commercial buildings,and educationalinstitutions.205
Sheets developed a collaborative designstudiowitha talented poolof artists whohad various specialties, including stained glass,mosaics,painting,and sculpture.Ideas typicallyoriginated withSheets,orwere reviewedandgivenapprovalbySheets,whofunctioned as the “impresario”of the collaborative studio.206 Sheets developedaveryidentifiable and unique expressionof the New Formaliststyle inhis workforAhmanson,which has alsobeencalled the “Home Savings Style.”The style is characterized bymonumentaland geometric massing,white travertine marble,integrated artworks,and gold gilding.Building off the success of the first commission,Sheets furtherrefined the Home Savings Style toits recognizable form,sometimes repeating the basicplanand formof a bankwitha new artprogram.Prototypicalexamples of the earlyHome Savings Style of New Formalisminclude the Comptonbranch(1958)and Buena Parkbranch(1960),and more elaborate examples include the Pasadena branch(1963)and Santa Monica branch(1971)(Fig. 120 and Fig. 121).
Following the untimely deathof Ahmansonin1968,Sheets continued tocollaborate withthe Home Savings & LoanAssociation,andbeganproducing designsthatdivergedfromhis earlier,more standardizedmodels.These latercommissions oftenincludedmore locally specificthemesandmotifs inthe integratedmosaicand muralart programs.207 In1972,astatelaw changedthatallowedsavingsandloanassociations to operatestatewide,which created new opportunities forHome Savings &LoanAssociationtoexpand toNorthernCalifornia.208 Sheets continued toworkuntil 1978,whenheretired,and hisstudio closedin 1980.209 MillardSheetsdesignedthefrieze
203 Adam Arenson, Banking on Beauty: Millard Sheets and Midcentury Commercial Architecture in California (Austin: University of TexasPress,2018),70.
204 In a1977interview,Sheetsnoted,“an architect named Homolka, whoworkswith menowatagreatmany of myjobs. AfterI designthem, hedoes the finish engineering. He'sanexcellent architect andhas good engineers.” Millard Sheets,Interviewof Millard Sheets,George M.Goodwin, November 17, 1976 – January16,1977,Universityof California LosAngelesLibrary,CenterforOralHistory Research, n.p. (page250 of 345 intranscriptPDF).
205 “Definitive ListforHomeSavings and LoanArtwork, Savings of America Artwork, andthe Millard SheetsStudio Public Projects,” AdamArenson, updated August 2018, accessedonline February13,2024,https://adamarenson.com/books/banking-on-beauty-millard-sheets-and-midcentury-commercialarchitecture-in-california/definitive-list-for-home-savings-and-loan-artwork-savings-of-america-artwork-and-the-millard-sheets-studio-publicprojects-2-3/
206 Arenson, Banking on Beauty, 284.
207 Arenson, Banking on Beauty, 158.
208 Arenson, Banking on Beauty, 180.
209 Arenson, Banking on Beauty, 284.
and interior and exteriormurals forthe California ScottishRite MemorialTemple (2850 19th Avenue,1964).After Home Savings beganexpanding northinthe early1970s,Sheets designed three branchbanks inSanFrancisco: 265 SacramentoStreet(1974,notextant),98 WestPortalAvenue (1977),and 2750 VanNess Avenue (1977) (Fig. 122andFig.124).Throughaseriesof acquisitions and mergers inthe 1990s and early2000s,mostformerHome Savings &LoanAssociationbranchbanks are now owned byChase Bank.
Fig.120.BuenaParkHomeSavingsbranch,built1960,by MillardSheetsclosely resemblestheCompton branch and others.
(Source:AdamArenson,JasonFoo,LaureneHardingRivas, Regina O’Brien,andCheryllDudley Roberts,“Millard Sheets,ALegacyofArtandArchitecture,” LA Conservancy, 2012.)
Fig. 121. Santa Monica HomeSavingsbranch, completed1969(later altered),isa moreelaborate expression of theHomeSavingsStyleof New Formalism.
(Source:Hadley Meares,“TheIconic MuralsOf Millard SheetsAreDisappearing From LA,” LAist,July 31, 2019.)
Fig. 122. Former HomeSavings& Loan Association branchbank(1977)at98WestPortalAvenue,designed by MillardSheetsandhiscollaborativedesign studio. Thebuildingincludesasculpturalfountainandmosaic mural.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
New FormalismEvaluation Criteria
StatementofSignificance: TheNewFormaliststyleisan expression of LateModernism thatincorporatessimplified featureswith Classical,andlesscommonly Gothic,precedents.TheNewFormaliststyle emergedin theUnitedStatesin themid-1950sandwaspioneeredby architectssuch as Minoru Yamasaki,EdwardDurrellStone,andPhilipJohnson. Characteristicsinclude massiveor monumentalscale,flatprojecting roof planes,strictsymmetry,expressed archesorattenuatedcolumns,andprestigematerials.Nationally,generouspublic plazas, oftenwith pools,fountainsorsculpture,aretypicalofNewFormalistarchitecture butare lesscommoninSanFrancisco.TheNewFormaliststyle,whichreacheditspeakpopularity inthe1960s and1970s,hasanelevated,refined,andmonumentalquality,witha populist andfamiliar aesthetic, which madeitwellsuitedfor civic buildingsandcultural institutions.Asthestylegainedpopularity,italso becameemployedfor bankbuildings, including for high-styleandmoremodestbranch bankexamples.Resourceswithin this sub-themeshouldbeevaluatedforsignificanceunderCriterionC/3asexcellentexamples of NewFormalistarchitecture.
SignificantexamplesofNewFormalistarchitecturewilltypically display a fullexpression of thestyle,drawing from thecharacter-defining featuresoutlinedbelow.TheNew Formaliststyleisrarein San Francisco,butsignificanceisderivedfrom expressive features typicallyderivedfromClassicalorGothicprecedents aswellasornamentation and/or prestigematerials.Propertiesthatincorporateonly somefeaturesof theNew Formaliststyle,butthatlackornamentation,symmetry,or typicalmaterialsor features, wouldnotqualify asindividually architecturally significant. In San Francisco,thestyleis mostcommonly associatedwith branch banks,including former HomeSavings& Loan Association banksby MillardSheets,and,lesscommonly,with commercialbuildings, offices,theaters,andreligiousinstitutions.
PeriodofSignificance: 1960s-1970s
JustificationofPeriodof Significance:
In theearly 1960s,someSan Francisco buildings began to exhibitfeaturesthatare associatedwith theNewFormaliststyle,including archedbasesor colonnades.Full expressionsof NewFormalism werebuilt in thecity between themid-1960sand late 1970s. By thelate1970s,thealready rarestylehadfallen outof favor.
Banksarethemostcommon property typeassociatedwith NewFormalism in San Francisco.Limitedexamplesof theaters,religiousinstitutions,office andcommercial buildings(including medicaloffices),andhotelsarefoundin San Francisco.
CriterionC/3 Eligibility Standards
Aproperty may be considered aneligible resource underCriterionC/3 if itmeets the following:
• Constructed during the periodof significance(1960s-1970s) and meets relevantcriterionconsiderations forproperties of the recentpast;referto“RecentPast&Considerations forResources Less than50 Years Old”inthe Introduction of this report.
• Individuallyeligible resources willbe excellentand fullexpressions of New Formalism.
• Musthave highlevels of integrity,particularlyintegrity of design,materials,and workmanship
• Rarityof anextantpropertytype inthe New Formaliststyle maybe a considerationindetermining eligibility.
• The New Formaliststyle,whichis nationallyassociated withmonumentalgovernmentand civicdesign, is rare inSanFrancisco More often, Late Modernistbuildings inSanFranciscohave elements of New Formalist designbutare notfullexpressions of the style. Incomplete expressions of the New Formalist style,or Late Modernistbuildings withsome elements of New Formalistdesign,would notqualifyas architecturally significantunderthe sub-theme of New Formalism.Forexample,modestbranchbanks withonly some features of the New Formaliststyle,suchas anarcade orarched window openings,are not likelytorise toa levelof significance forindividualeligibilityunderCriterionC/3.
• Properties thatinclude anoriginal,associated publicartworkand/ordesigned landscape,including residentialgardens,corporate plazas,and institutionalgrounds,should be evaluated comprehensively. Inother words,the landscape and/orpublicartshould be evaluated as partof the overalldesignof the propertyand factored intoconsiderations of significance and integrity,and identificationof characterdefining features.
o Insome cases,apublicartwork and/ordesignedlandscape mayalsorise toa levelof individual significance.Referalsotothe evaluative frameworks infollowing historiccontextstatements: Public Art, Monuments & Murals (inprogress)and Landscapes (1848 -1989) (planned).
• Otherconsiderations:
o Properties designed orconstructed byanArchitectorBuilderof Merit,particularlyif the resource is a rare orexceptionalexample of the architectorbuilder’s workinSanFrancisco, should be considered.Refertothe EvaluationFrameworkin Architecture, Planning, & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies forfurtherinformation.
As New Formalistbuildings are rare inSanFrancisco,noclusters orpotentialdistricts are knowntoexist.
Character-Defining Features
Character-definingfeaturesofNewFormalistproperties significantunderCriterionC/3 would be those elements thatrepresentits significantdesignqualities relative toits date of construction.The following are anticipated character-defining features of a significant New Formalistproperties underCriterionC/3:
• Massive ormonumentalmassing
• Strict symmetry
• Flat,oftenprojecting rooflines
• Smooth wallsurfaces
• High-qualitymaterials,suchas travertine,marble,orgranite,orman-made composite materials that approximate the lookof prestige materials
• Buildings oftensetona podium
• Simplified features based onClassical orGothicprecedents,suchas arches,colonnades,and columns
• Plaza orformallandscape.Pools and fountains are less commoninSanFranciscoexamples.
Integrity Considerations
Apropertyeligible underCriterionC/3 should retainthe majorityof its aspects of integritydating to the period whenthe significantdesignwas completed,withanemphasis of integrityof design,materials,and workmanship.The building’s significantdesignqualities should remainreadilyapparent,and the majorityof originalfeatures and materials thatconveythe significantdesignshould remainextant.Integrityof locationis expectedforindividuallyeligible New Formalistproperties Inanurbanenvironmentsuchas SanFrancisco,itis expectedthatthe broadsettingandnearbyproperties willchange overtime;changes to the area surrounding a propertyare generallyunlikelyto be a factorinevaluating late twentiethcenturyproperties underCriterionC/3. Exteriorcladdingmaterialsare generallyquite significanttothe designofNewFormalistbuildings. Inorderfora building to retainintegritywithreplacementwindows,windows mustbe replaced in-kind orreplaced with windows thatmimicthe existing fenestrationpatternwithinoriginalopenings;buildings thatretainhigh integrity otherwisebuthavereplacedwindowswillbeevaluatedforindividualeligibilityonacase-by-casebasis. Inthe caseofNewFormalistbanks,alterations to signage and installationof ATMs are typicaland are notlikely to have a substantialoverallimpactto the design.Properties eligible underCriterionC/3 should retainallor mostoriginalornamentaldetails and integrated artprograms.Plazas and associated landscape features may also be importantto anunderstanding of designintegrity.
Fig.124.Former HomeSavings& Loan Association branch bankat2750Van NessAvenue(1977),wasdesignedby MillardSheetsandhiscollaborativedesignstudio.Themosaic muralfeatureslocalmotifs,including thecity skyline andGolden GateBridge.Whilethebuilding doesnothavesomeof thefeaturesof typicalNewFormalism,such as columnsor arcades,itexemplifiestheuniqueHomeSavingsStyleof NewFormalism.Themonumentalmassing, stonecladding,goldtrim,andmosaicartcontributetothedistinctivecharacterofthebuilding,which appearsto be eligibleunder Criterion C/3as an exampleof theHomeSavingsStyleof NewFormalism andtheworkof Millard Sheets.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig.125.175JeffersonStreetwasbuiltc.1964asA.Sabella’sRestaurantby architectEdwardWong. Thebuilding is an exampleof NewFormalistdesign in neighborhoodcommercialbuilding.Thebuilding hasbeen substantially alteredover theyears,including alterationsto thegroundfloor,alterationsto signage,addedawnings,andmore notably,thepatternoffenestrationhasbeendisruptedbyanewbalcony,replacementwindows,andaddedsignage. Assuch,thebuilding doesnotappear to retain overallhistoric integrity.
(Source: CardCow.com (left);Flynn Group(right).)
Sub-Theme: ThirdBayTradition(c.1965-c.1980)
The Third BayTraditionis a sub-theme of the BayTraditionStyles theme,whichis elaborated uponinthe Bay Area Tradition Styles HCS (1880 -1980) (inprogress) BayRegionModernismis alsodiscussed inthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935 -1970),witha brief sectiononthe Third BayTradition. The Third BayTraditioncanbe understood as a regionalidiomof Modernism,whichincludes contextual,wood-clad housing thatspans betweenLate Modernismand Postmodernism. Keyearlyexamples of residentialarchitecture that embodythe principles thatwould be developed inthe Third BayTraditioninclude the earlybuildings atThe Sea Ranchin Sonoma County,including Condominium One (1963-65,Moore,Lyndon,Turnbull&Whitaker),and the Orinda House (1962)byCharles Moore (Fig. 5 and Fig. 126).The Sea Ranchwas widelyphotographed and featured in contemporarypublications,and Moore was a prolificwriter whotaughtatUCBerkeley,Yale,UCLA,and the Universityof Texas atAustin.As suchprinciples of the Third BayTraditionwere widelydisseminated and influential inresidentialarchitecture of the late twentiethcentury.210
Fig. 126. TheSea Ranch CondominiumOnecomplex (196365) on theSonoma County coast wasdesignedby Moore,Lyndon, Turnbull& Whitaker (MLTW) andis oneof themostsignificant progenitorsof theThirdBay Tradition.Thestylealsowasreused anddilutedin many more mundaneexamplesof condo vernacular grouphousing.
(Source:7x7.com.)
The earlySea Ranchprojects found inspirationinlocalvernaculararchitecture,suchas weathered barns,and utilizedshedroofs,and whatMoore referred toas “saddlebag”volumes hung onthe sides.211 These features,as wellasunpainted wood boardorshingle siding,along withthe interiorspace planning,allbecame characteristic features of the regionalNorthernCalifornia Third BayTraditionof architecture. These projects begantobreak out of the typicalbox of Modernism,introducing more complex massing and interiorvolumetricplanning.These complex interiors were based onthree-dimensionalplanning principles of the raumplan,whereinthere are not standard interiorfloor plates (firststory,second story,etc.),butrathera complex and interconnected series of multi-height spaces,mezzanines,and lofts.The Third BayTradition,whichgrew outof these earlyprecedents, retained the regionalModernistinterestinindoor-outdoor connections, butfurthersoughttosite buildings into the existing topographyand landscape,ratherthanclearing and leveling a site.212 Strategicallyplaced windows
210 CharlesMoore, Gerald Allen, Donlyn Lyndon, The Place of Houses (NewYork:Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1974);andJenniferDunlop Fletcher and Joseph Becker, The Sea Ranch: Architecture, Environment, and Idealism (San Francisco: SanFrancisco Museumof Modern Art, 2018).
211 CharlesMoore, “TheEnd of Arcadia,” in Bay Area Houses,ed.Sally Woodbridge, (Salt LakeCity:GibbsM. Smith, 1988),280
212 This principle was,of course, lostforthe mostpartby thetime theThird BayTradition wasbeingused asa‘condo vernacular’ formoregeneric housing complexes in suburban areas.
framedspecificviews,ratherthantrying tocapture apanoramic view,andwereusedtothrow and reflectnatural lightacross rooms.
The Third BayTradition,like the Firstand Second BayTraditions,is used almostexclusivelyinresidential architecture. Thereare scatteredexamples of Third BayTraditionsingle-familyhouses and duplexes throughout SanFrancisco’s residentialneighborhoods,particularly inthe centralhills and around PacificHeights (Fig. 127Fig. 129) InSanFrancisco,building onsmallerurbanlots,examples of single-family,duplex,and multi-family residentialThird BayTraditionbuildings caninclude buildings thathave more traditionalModernistboxy volumes and more standard floorplans;these examples stilltypicallyhave wood shingle orunpainted wood board siding,and mayhave features suchas projecting baywindows,smallershed roof features,orprojecting chimneys thatadd tothe overallvolume of the building.
Fig. 127. Theroundsideof thisshingled ThirdBay Tradition styleresidence(111 EdgehillWay,1970,BackenArrigoni&Ross (BAR)) isuniquely adaptedto itscurved, corner site.TheJ-plan building has projecting shed-roofedglassbaysthat hanglikesaddlebags a common feature of theThirdBay Tradition andSea Ranch architecture.
Fig. 129. 91Clarendon Avenue (1974,Burger & Coplans) hasa playfulcontrastbetween two exaggeratedstylesof bay windows.Exceptfor thecarport, nowenclosedasa garage,the building appearsmuch asitdid when documentedin the1976 DCPsurvey.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
The Third BayTradition,however,is mostcommonlyfound in multi-family residentialproperties (Fig. 130).As noted inthe Modern Architecture HCS (1935-1970),theriseinpopularityof the Third BayTraditionand ‘Sea Ranch style’coincided new regulations and othersocioeconomicfactors that precipitate anincrease incondominium
home ownership and clustered group housing complexes,and features of the style were “diffused across the country and became a nationalcondominiumvernacular” 213
Fig. 130. VineTerrace Apartments(930Pine Street,1973) by Beverly Willisembody theThird Bay Tradition stylewith woodshinglesiding, cantedskylights,andlarge articulatedchimneys.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
The NationalHousing Actof 1961 passed byCongress made federalmortgage insurance available tobuyers of whatwereknown ascondominiums (abbreviatedas condos) orprivatelyowned units ina building orcomplex of buildings thathave undivided interestinthe shared parts of the property.This change made itmuchmore affordable and attractive tobuya condothanithad beenpreviously,and constructionof condobuildings increasedinSanFranciscoasdemandforhousing remainedhighevenasavailability of land decreased.Condos were constructed inredevelopmentareas,including GoldenGateway,Diamond Heights,WesternAddition, RinconPoint-South Beach,and Bayview Hunters Point,as wellas throughoutotherareas of the city.214 Insome cases,these condos appeared similartoapartmentbuildings and were designed invarious contemporary Modernand Postmodernstyles;due tothe popularityof CondominiumOne atThe Sea Ranch(1965)inNorthern California designed byMoore,Lyndon, Turnbull&Whitaker(MLTW),the Third BayTraditionstyle became particularly popularforcondobuildings inthe late 1960s and 1970s (Fig. 131).Inothercases,condos had additionalcommunity amenities suchas pools,gyms,communalrooms,and/orshared landscapes thatwere owned and maintained bya homeowner’s association(HOA).215 Suchamenities were alsoheavilymarketed to counteract the generaltrends of suburbanflight.
213 Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement,139.
214 Some Diamond Heights salesbrochures evenprovided definitions of condominiums tohelp familiarize potential buyers with the relatively newconcept. “TownHouse Ownershipon GeneralElectric’s RedRock Hill,” brochure, c.1964.SanFrancisco Redevelopment AgencyArchives.
215 “Originand History of Condominium LawsinCalifornia,” Adams Stirling Professional LawCorporation, February6,2021,accessedonline February13, 2024,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m2OZOIV6o4
Fig. 131. Community building andpoolat theDiamondHeightsVillage(115RedRock Way,1972) condo complex,designedby Joseph EsherickandArthur Gensler.The ThirdBayTraditionstylehasclearreferences to TheSea Ranch,whereEsherickalso designeda number of early houses.
(Source:SFH371San Francisco RedevelopmentAgency Records,SFPL, History Center.)
The clustered Third BayTraditioncomplexes inDiamond Heights are generallyintact,althoughinatleastone case unpainted wood shingles have beenreplaced withpainted shingles.In the WesternAddition, where fullblockapartment complexes tend tohave manyfeatures of Late Modernism,including massing,flatroofs,and regularfenestration, itis more common thatlimited regionalfeatures suchas wood shingles and otherwood siding have beenreplaced withstuccosiding (Fig. 132 -Fig. 134).Insome limited examples,a more regional vernacular of Late Modernismis employed forneighborhood commercialarchitecture suchas banks orretail stores,orin religious and institutional architecture;inthese cases,wood siding (diagonalwood is common), geometricvolumes,and shed roofs maybe employed (Fig. 135)
Fig. 132. FriendshipVillage(1047McAllister Street, 1971) byBulkley&SazevichintheWesternAddition A-2 redevelopmentprojectarea,whichretainedaVictorian era façadeasan entry gateway into thecentral courtyard.
Fig.133.TheVictorian era façadeatFriendshipVillageis extant,althoughithasbeen enclosedwith a security gate. Thebuilding hasthemassing,flatroof,andregular fenestration of a LateModernistbuilding,with shingle siding thatevokessomeof theregionalstyleof theThird Bay Tradition.Theresidentialcomplex hasbeen painted, butthebrown color issimilar to theoriginal color of the shingles.(Source: Page& Turnbull).
Fig. 134. Thecommunity building in thecentral courtyardof theBuchanan Park Apartmentscomplex (1150Buchanan Street,1977,Krisel,Shapiro & Associates) intheWestern Addition A-2redevelopment projectarea hasa uniquebutterfly roof anddiagonal woodsiding.ThisThirdBayTraditionbuildinghasbeen strippedof itswoodsiding andisnowcladin stucco.
Street,1981) by theAfrican American-ledfirm Jenkins&Fleminghasmanyof theformalcharacteristics ofLateModernism,butisinflectedwith a certain amount ofregionalmaterialityinthediagonalwoodsiding,which isassociatedwith theThirdBay Tradition.
Supergraphics,whichweremadepopularbyThe Sea Ranchand Bobbie StauffacherSolomon,maybe a feature of Third BayTraditiondesign.However,extantexamples of twentiethcenturyenvironmentalsupergraphics appeartoberare inSanFrancisco.Refertothe Supergraphicssub-sectionofthe HistoricContext:SanFrancisco in the Late 20th Century chapterof this document.
Some Third BayTraditionarchitecture is influenced by“hippie”or“eco”Modernism,as well as solardesign, whichwaspopularinthe 1960sand1970s as a response toenvironmentalconcerns.Relativelyfew examples of hippie Modernismwere builtwithinthe cityof SanFrancisco,whichwas alreadydenselybuiltoutand more highlyregulatedthanplaceslike MarinCounty.HippieModernismis discussed furtherinthe Historic Context: Environmental Movement, Hippie Modernism & Sustainability in Design sectionof this report.
Regionally,Charles Moore,WilliamTurnbull,Donlyn Lyndon, Richard Whitaker(whoworked togetheras the firm Moore,Turnbull, Lyndon&Whitakeror MLTW,and variouslateriterations), JosephEsherick(and his firmEsherick Homsey,and Dodge,and laterEsherick,Homsey,Dodge &Davis orEHDD),and DimitriVendenskywere influential inpioneering the Third BayTradition,particularly through theirhighly publicized workatThe Sea Ranch.Esherickand his firmcompleted a numberof projects inSanFranciscointhe Second Bayand Third Bay Traditionmodes.While highlyinfluentialregionally,builtworks byMoore and Turnbullare rare withinthe cityof SanFrancisco.Local architects whobuiltinthe Third BayTraditionwithinthe cityinclude,butare notlimited to (alphabetical): JonathanD.Bulkley,Burger&Coplans (Edmund G.Burgerand Patricia Coplans),Bowler&Chan (CarsonBowlerand RobertH.Chan), JosephEsherickand EHDD, Fisher-FriedmanAssociates,Donald MacDonald, DanielSolomon, SandyWalker,BeverlyWillis,and Zoe Works.
Fig.
McAllister
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
SanFrancisco
Third BayTradition Evaluation Criteria
Statementof Significance: Refer to theEvaluation Frameworkin the Bay Area Tradition Styles HCS (1880-1980) (in progress)forastatementofsignificance,character-definingfeatures,evaluation criteria,and integrity thresholds.
MostThirdBay Tradition architecturewasbuiltin San Francisco in thelate1960sand1970s; however,thereissignificantoverlapin style,form,andmaterialbetween theThirdBay Tradition andcontextualPostmodernism in the1980sand1990s.Refer to theTheme: Postmodernism(1970s–early2000s)discussionofthisreportfor moreaboutregionaland contextualPostmodernism.
PeriodofSignificance: c.1965–c.1980
JustificationofPeriod ofSignificance: TheThirdBayTraditionbecamepopularafterthewidelypublishedprojectsatTheSea Ranch in Sonoma County,andremainedin usethroughoutthe1970s.
Fig.136. Two adjacentsingle-family residentialpropertiesat282Franconia Street(1965,Bowler & Chan) and201 RutledgeStreet(1973,RobertH.Chan) weredesignedin theThirdBay Tradition by thesamearchitect.Thesetwo homesarefullexpressionsoftheThirdBayTraditionwithclearreferencestoSeaRanchCondo Onein their vertical, unfinishedwoodsiding,shedroofs,andirregular massing with saddlebag volumes.Thecomplexity of theinterior spaceisevidentfromtheexterior.Thepropertiesappeartohavegoodintegrity andappear to each beindividually or collectively eligibleashistoric resources.
(Source:GoogleStreetView,2023.)
Fig. 137. 233Franconia Street(1964) by localarchitect Jonathan Bulkley originally exhibitedseveralfeaturesof theThirdBayTradition,including referencesto vernacular barn architectureandunfinishedwoodsiding.
(Source: 1976DCPSurvey Form,PIM.)
Fig. 138. 233Franconia Streethassincebeen remodeledwith moreconventionalwindows,roof eaves,andstuccosiding.Theresidencelacksintegrity of design,workmanship,materials,association,and feeling thatwouldtieitto theThirdBay Tradition or architectJonathan Bulkley’sbody of work.Assuch, theproperty isnotan eligiblehistoric resource.
(Source:GoogleStreetView,2023.)
Theme: Postmodernism(mid-1970s-2000)
Architectural Postmodernism describes a movementand era of reactions toorthodox Modernismthattooka multiplicity of forms.216 As anumbrella term,Postmodernismdescribes botha generalsetof traits theoretical andaesthetic as wellasvarietyof strands orsub-genresofarchitectural designthathavebeenvariouslynamed and categorized. These include expressions of Postmodernismthatrunthe gamutfromironictoClassicistto eclectictoneo-vernacular and shingled regionalismtocontextualurbanismtocollage aesthetictostraight revivalismand historicist pastiche. As discussed inthe Historic Context: Late, Post & New: Architectural Modernism&ItsDiscontents sectionof this historiccontextstatement,architecturalPostmodernismemerged as a reactiontoand evolution awayfromModernismthatwas informed by nascentcritiques based onthe works of Jane Jacobs,RobertVenturi, Denise ScottBrown, and AldoRossi.
Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961)was a pivotalcritique of mid-twentiethcentury urban planning policyand redevelopmentand documented humane concerns aboutcitylife AldoRossi’s L’architettura della città (1966,published inEnglishas The Architecture of the City,1982)observed thatthe city must be studied and understood byarchitects as something builtonovertime a palimpsestof “collective memory.”Denise ScottBrownand RobertVenturisoughttoexplore historicaland vernacularsources,both highbrow and lowbrow,kitsch,uglyand ordinary intheirprofessionalarchitecturalpractice as wellas their teaching and seminalpublications including Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (RobertVenturi,1962), and laterin Learning from Las Vegas (RobertVenturi,Denise ScottBrownand StevenIzenour,1972).217 Broadly, Postmodernism provided a response tocritiques of the tabula rasa approachtoModernisturbanismand tothe over-emphasis onabstractionand functionalism inpuristModernist orthodoxy,whichto some,had become banal.To Mies vanderRohe’s refrain“less is more” – RobertVenturiquipped “less is a bore.”218
Charles Jencks,one of the maintheorists of architectural Postmodernism, spentacareerrefining and revisiting a complex “evolutionarytree”of Postmodernisminwhichhe tended toillustrate six rivers orblobs thatflowed in and outof eachother,filled withsub-styles,architects (some of whomappeared inmultiple locations),and specificbuildings (Fig. 139) 219 Whereas inthe popularimagination,Postmodernismlikelyis mostassociated withwhatJencks calls PostmodernClassicism,as practiced by architects like MichaelGraves,orperhaps the “dissonantcollage”of FrankGehryand the Los Angeles School,these diagrams illustrate the diversitywithin Postmodernism and the fluidityof categories. And,indeed,mostSanFranciscoPostmodernismtends tobe more inthe realmof neo-vernacular,regionalism,ad-hocurbanism,and contextualism,toborrow Jencks’s terms,building off the eclecticismof the earlierBayTraditions
216 Theterm“postmodern” wasalready in usetodescribe aself-referentialskepticismof Modernism in philosophy, art,and sociology. Thereissome debateabout who firstusedthe terminthe contextof architecture. However, thetermwasemployed todescribe architecture by CharlesJencksin his in a1975 essay,“TheRiseof Post-Modern Architecture,” Architectural Association Quarterly 7,no.4 (October/December1975):3-14,aswellashis seminal text, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture,which wasfirstpublished in1977.Jencksremainsone of themostprominent and prolific exponents of Postmodern architectural theoryand criticism, andthemany editions of The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (NewYork:Rizzoli, 1977,1978,1981,1984,1987,1991,2002),continuetobewidelyread.He provides his own,perhaps defensiveaccount of theuseof thetermin the sixth edition; Jencks, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (NewYork:Rizzoli, 1991),20.RobertA. M.Sternalso beganusing thetermand writing about Postmodernism during thisperiod in the1970s.
217 Otherseminal textsinthecritique of Modernism and formulation of Postmodernism included LewisMumford’sessay“TheCaseAgainstModern Architecture” in Architectural Record (April 1962),PeterBlake’s Form Follows Fiasco (1977),ColinRoweandFredKoetter’s Collage City (1978),andthe widely popular From Bauhaus to Our House (1981) byTomWolfe.
218 Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (NewYork:The Museumof Modern Art,New York,1966),25.
219 Mark Wigley,“TheDrawingthat AteArchitecture,” JencksFoundation, 2023,accessedonline February 13,2024, https://www.jencksfoundation.org/explore/text/the-drawing-that-ate-architecture
Fig.139.The“Post-ModernEvolution–Evolutionary Tree,” by CharlesJenckes,2002.Thisisoneof many iterations of evolutionary treesthatJenckspublishedon Late-,Post-,andNeo-Modernism.
(Source: CharlesJencks, The New Paradigm in Architecture: The Language of Post-Modernism (NewHaven:Yale University Press, 2002),51.)
ForJencks,the primaryidentifiers of Postmodernismincluded pluralism,bywhichhe called forarchitects to embracea “radicaleclecticism,”and a “double-coding”ormultivalence,bywhichhe meantthatbuildings could communicate toarchitectexperts(elites)as wellas the broaderpublicthroughhistoricalreferences,symbolism,
and irony.220 HeinrichKlotz,another majortheorist of architecturalPostmodernism, argued thatPostmodernism was a revisionorevolution of Modernism ratherthana wholesale revolutionor rejection and thatJencks put too muchemphasis onpluralism.Klotz,instead,defined Postmodernisminterms of narrative,and as responding to“notonlyfunction butfiction as well!”withthe “new impetus aimed toward representationand directlyopposed toabstraction.”221 Commonamongstdefinitions of Postmodernism, however,are emphasis on architectural communication and language,and the reopening of the wellof history as wellas vernacularand mass culture forreference and source material.
Although Postmodernism emerged inSanFranciscoinbuiltforminthe mid-1970s,there were severalimportant precursors inCalifornia,including The Sea Ranch(1965,MLTW)and Charles Moore’s Orinda House (1962) and CitizensSavingsBank (1KearnyStreet,1962),whichhave beendescribed as harbingers of Postmodernism(Fig. 5,Fig.126,and Fig. 140) 222 Pointing tothese buildings,architecturalhistorianMitchellSchwarzerhas gone as far as saying that“SanFranciscois one of the birthplaces of architecturalpostmodernism.”223 Althoughmore national andinternational narratives havetypicallylocated thebeginningswithLe Corbusier’sRonchamp chapel (Fig. 2) orRobertVenturi’s Guild House and Vanna VenturiHouse inPhiladelphia (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4),itis a fair observationthatthe workand writings of Charles Moore, alongside his colleagues atMLTW,had a profound impacton the trajectoryof localand nationalarchitecture, and inparticularthe approachtocomplex interior spaces (raumplan)and use of vernacularsources.
220 Jencks, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture (1991),10.
Fig. 140. TheCitizens SavingsBank(1Kearny Street,1962) by Charles Moorewasheraldedatthe timeof construction asan exampleof contextual Modernism thatresponded totheexistingurban context. Thebuilding floor plates referencethewindow pattern attheadjacent MutualSavingsBank(700 MarketStreet,1902,William Curlett),aswellasthe mansardroof.Thebuilding hasalso been describedasa precursor to Postmodernism in San Francisco.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
221 Heinrich Klotz, The History of Postmodern Architecture (Cambridge,MA:The MITPress, 1988),preface,129-30.Klotzwrites,“Thetransition from modernism topostmodernism wasanalmost smooth one, likethetransition betweentheearly andthe highRenaissance; by nomeansdid all the standards orthe priorities change.The protestagainstmodernism isnot adeterminate andrigid “No”;rather,it isa“Yes,but.”; Klotz, The History of Postmodern Architecture,128.
222 Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide,44.
223 Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide,44.
Indeed,Klotz places,alongside Venturiand Hans Hollein,a strong emphasis onthe workof Charles Moore and MLTW including the Piazza d’Italia (New Orleans,1974),Kresge College (Universityof California,Santa Cruz, 1971),SeaRanch,and Orinda House as setting the stage and preconditions forPostmodernism.224 Klotz further highlights the works of Thomas Gordon Smithas significantwithinthe Postmodern canon;although Smith did not build anyknownprojects withinSanFrancisco,his earlyworks inLivermore and Richmond are notable as examples of a colorfulexpressionof PostmodernClassicism(Fig. 141).225 MichaelGraves,alsoknownforhis use of color and Classicalarchitecturalreferences,pushed Postmodernismtoanextreme of exaggerated scale and irony. Graves’s commissionforClos Pegas WineryinCalistoga was featured ina designcompetitiononview at the SFMOMAin1985.Thatexhibit,along withthe 1982 installationof the Strada Novissima fromthe Venice Biennale atFortMasonCenter,were watershed moments inSanFrancisco, marking the rise of Postmodernism inpopularculture and the arts;formore onthese exhibitions,referto Historic Context: Late, Post & New: Architectural Modernism & Its Discontents (Fig. 142).
141.RichmondHillHouse
Thomas Gordon Smith (1983) in Richmond,CA is an exampleof historicistor Postmodern Classicism.
(Source:Henry Bowles,photographer.
226)
California by MichaelGraveswastheresult ofadesigncompetitionthatwasfeatured asanexhibitionatSFMOMAin 1985.Theprojectwascompletedin 1987. Theexaggeratedscaleandborrowing of Classicalreferencesepitomize Postmodern Classicism anditsuseof irony.
(Source:MichaelGraves.)
The formation and rise of Postmodernarchitecture did notonlyoccur inthe realmof theoryand criticism,which isparticularly evidentinSanFrancisco.Publicsentimentsthathad begunbrewinginthe1950sand1960s during the FreewayRevolts,cametoa forein responsetothe inhumane excessesofurbanrenewaland redevelopment. As the citygrew and downtownboomed,citizens expressed fears overthe “Manhattanization”of the City’s unique,hilly,waterfront skyline byanonslaughtof high-rise construction, as wellas the loss of historicbuildings and fine-grained urbancharacterdowntownand inthe neighborhoods subjecttoredevelopment.Debates over
224 Klotz, The History of Postmodern Architecture,130,158-61,and176-91.
225 Klotz, The History of Postmodern Architecture,199-205.
226 Gordon H.Block, “Classical Architecture Contributor: Thomas Gordon Smith,” Traditional Building, accessed online February13,2024, https://www.traditionalbuilding.com/ features/thomas-gordon-smith
Fig.
by
Fig. 142. ClosPegasWinery in Calistoga,Napa Valley,
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
building heights and urbandesigninformed the SanFranciscoPlanning Department’s issuance of several documents thatwere instrumentalinshaping the cityinthe late twentiethcentury:the 1971 UrbanDesignPlan, the 1985 DowntownPlan,and the 1989 ResidentialDesignGuidelines.227 The city’s searchforcontextual urbanism alignedwiththe broadercritiques of Modernism,and the rise of architecturalPostmodernism.Indeed, Schwarzerwrote of the implementationof the 1985 DowntownPlan,“Architecturalpostmodernismwas now legallyenforced” a sentimentthatAllanTemko,if notcityplanners,would have agreed with.228 Drawing from the wellof eclecticismwithinthe BayArea Tradition,as wellas otherdistinctlySanFranciscanvernaculars,such as Victorianand Edwardianera rowhouses and baywindows and brickindustrialwarehouses,the Postmodern architecture of SanFranciscoemphasizes contextualismand regionalism.This contextualismand regionalism wasfurther reinforcedinPlanning Department guidelinesandpolicies.Referalsotothe Historic Context: San Francisco in the Late 20 th Century sectionof this report.
Commercial Postmodernism
Postmodernism became the dominantarchitecturalstyle fordowntownhigh-rise construction inthe mid-1980s, especiallyfollowing the adoptionof the 1985 DowntownPlan,and throughthe 1990s Evenbythe 1970s, though, Postmodern architecture was emerging incommercialretailenvironments and spanned the spectrum fromutterly coolScandinavianhome goods atDesignResearch(D/R)tothe Disneyfied waterfronttourist experience of Pier39.Withinthe massive Late ModernistEmbarcaderoCenter,WilliamTurnbullremodeled an interior retailspace ina Postmodernmode thathe described as “recalling poeticallythe idiosyncrasies of residentialVictorian SanFrancisco”(Fig.143).229 Theepitome of cooland good taste,D/R sold Scandinavianand Modernisthome goods fromthe EmbarcaderoCenterlocationfrom1973 to1979.Onthe otherhand,Pier39 opened in1978,and was excoriated byarchitecturalcritics fromAllanTemkoto PaulGoldberger,butithas proventoatleastbe a commercialsuccess and remains a populartouristdestination.230 Temko’s characterization of Pier39as“Corn. Kitsch.Schlock. Honky-tonk. Dreck.Schmaltz.Merde”and“pseudo-Victorian junk” was notappreciated by architects JohnC.Walkerand Bruce Moodywhodefended the projectas “PostModern”and “ad-hocpopulism”along the lines of Venturi,ScottBrown, and Jencks.231
227 Foradditional discussion of redevelopment, urban planning, anti-Manhattanization, andhistoric preservation, refertoHistoric Context:SanFranciscoin the Late 20th Century inthisdocument.
228 Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide,48.
229 Turnbull quoted in Isenberg, Designing San Francisco, 164;Page& Turnbull, Embarcadero Center: Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) Part 1,159-61.
230 Paul Goldberger described Pier 39assufferingfrom“excessivecuteness” and a“triteimitator of Ghirardelli” in his article “ACliché ComesHome To Roost,” The New York Times,April 2,1979.
231 Allan Temko“ThePort’sArchitectural Fiasco – Pier 39,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 30,1978,inTemko, No Way to Build a Ballpark, 175-9
Fig. 143. William Turnbullof MLTW remodeledan interior retail spaceatOneEmbarcadero Center in 1973for thenewSan Francisco Design Research (D/R) store. Design Research,basedin Cambridge,Massachusetts,openedtheir firstSan Francisco locationinthenewlyadaptedGhirardelliSquarein 1965,then later movedintoEmbarcaderoCenterin1973.AllnineD/Rstoresclosed in1979 whenthecompanydeclaredbankruptcy.TheEmbarcadero Center D/Rretailspaceisno longer extantasitwasremodeled during or beforea 1994movietheater addition.
Precursors toPostmodern high-rises hints of whatwas tocome canbe found inCharles Moore’s designfor the CitizensSavingsBank(1 KearnyStreet,1962)withits metalmansard roof,and in350 California Street(1977) bySOM,whichhas anover-scaled grid of bosses (knobs)and round columns.However,Postmodernismdid not fullyarrive indowntownhigh-rise architecture until the 1980swithCrockerTower&Galleria (50Post Street,1982) bySOM.Fordecades,SOMhad beenthoughtof as one of the stalwarts of Modernism,butthe SanFrancisco office had signaled theirinterestinexploring Postmodernismwiththeirparticipation inthe “Presence of the Past”exhibitionatFortMasonCenterin1982,and while the CrockerTowerhas the rectangularformof a typical LateModernisthigh-rise,itintroduces patternandornamentation tothe polishedgranitefaçade, and the arched glass atriumof the CrockerGalleria.The historicist columns and pergolas atthe roof terrace onthe historicbank atOne MontogomeryStreetdemonstrate a fullshiftintoPostmodernism (Fig. 144)
Manyof the downtownPostmodernist high-rises amounttogood background buildings fulfilling the principles of the 1985 DowntownPlan,butnotexcelling architecturally.The buildings are oftenverystaid withpolished granite orstone cladding and a requisite articulationorsetbackatthe top.Others verge toward the absurd and kitschwiththe exaggerationof theirformand ornamentation,suchas the “hallucinatoryjukebox”of the Marriott Marquis(780MissionStreet,1989, DMJM,ZeidlerPartnership Architects)and the cynical“Corporate Goddesses” atop 580 California Street(1984,Johnson&Burgee). 232 As previouslynoted,Postmodernismbecame the dominant mode of high-rise corporate and commercialarchitecture downtown,including foroffice towers, hotels,and condos.Postmodernismwas becoming nationallypopulararound the same time thatthe 1985 DowntownPlanwas implemented,and the historicpreservationmovementwas taking hold,and Postmodernist designthatincluded historicalarchitectural references,more stone and granite cladding,and articulated tops wasconsideredtobemore appropriate and contextualwiththe existing downtownbuiltenvironment (Fig. 145). Refertothe sub-sectiononthe 1985 DowntownPlaninHistoricContext:SanFranciscointhe Late 20th Century sectionof this reportformore.
232 Temko,“TheMarriottDebate:A HotelArchitects DetestandPeople Are CrazyAbout,” San Francisco Chronicle, February26,1990,in No Way to Build a Ballpark, 193-8.ArtistMuriel Castanis(1926-2006) wascommissionedby Philip Johnson to designthe artinstallation atop580 California Street;John M.Glionna, “Localsface off overBayArea’sstatues’meaning,” Los Angeles Times,January4,2007.
Fig. 145. Articulatedbuilding tops,which critic Allen Temko referredto as“pointy hats,” werea featureof Postmodernisthigh-risedesignfollowingtheadoption of the1985Downtown Plan.Examplesrangedfrom pseudoArtDecosetbacksasat100FirstPlaza(1989,SOMwithHeller& Leake,shownatleft),to theflag-toppedspiresof 345 California Center (1986,SOM,shown atcenter),to themoreextremein Johnson & Burgee’s580California Street (1984,shown atright),a mirror glassfaux-mansardrepletewith cynical“corporategoddess” sculptures.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
HistoricContextStatement
The dominance of Postmodernism inhigh-rise construction continued through SanFrancisco’s boomin downtownoffice construction in the 1980s,followed bya quietdecade of high-rise constructioninthe 1990s. Plannednine years earlierbutcompleted in2001,the Gap Headquarters (2 FolsomStreet) byRobertA.M.Stern was the lastmajorPostmodern office building builtdowntown.233 Whenthe nextwave of constructioncame following the techboominthe early2000s,construction hadfully shiftedtoSoMa andexpressed New Modernist design.
Compared tocorporate high-rises,more lushmaterialand freeruse of ornamentationand historicistreference is seeninsome mixed-usecommercialbuildings downtown,suchas One TrinityCenter(1145 MarketStreet,1989, Backen,Arrigoni &Ross)and 900 Kearny Street(1989,WilliamPodesto),the Postmodernpairtothe 1907 Sentinel Building (Fig.146andFig. 147).Postmodernismwas popularforothercommercialretailbuildings such as urbanshopping malls along MarketStreetand around UnionSquare. New shopping centers and department stores builtdowntownsuchasSanFranciscoCentre (865MarketStreet,1988, Whisler/Patri)and NeimanMarcus (150 StocktonStreet,1982,Johnson&Burgee) competed withsuburbanshopping malls (Fig. 148, Fig. 44 and Fig. 45).These retailbuildings are characterized byhigh-end finishes suchas polished granite and applied ornamentation. Postmodern neighborhood commercial buildings are found throughoutthe city,butare less common and tend tobe quirkierand rendered inmore modestmaterials like stuccoand concrete (Fig. 149).A rare knownindustrial commercial building inthe Postmodernstyle is the MoSTBuilding (80 MissouriStreet, 1991)byKotas/PantaleoniinPotreroHill.
Skidmore,Owings &Merrill(SOM)was byfarthe mostprolificdesignerof high-rises inthe Modernand Postmodern eras,building over15 high-rises inSanFranciscointhe 1960s and 1970s,and atleast15 more in 1980sand1990s (Fig. 150).Otherpractitioners associated withcommercialPostmodernisminclude,butare not limited to(alphabetical):Fee &Munson;ArthurGensler;JeffreyHeller(HellerManus Architects);Hellmuth,Obata &Kassabaum(HOK);Hornberger+ Worstell;Johnson&Burgee; KaplanMcLaughlinDiaz;KohnPedersenFox (KPF);AnthonyLumsdenand Daniel,Mann,Johnson&Mendenhall(DMJM);JohnPortman &Associates;Walker &Moody;and Whisler-Patri
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
233 John King,“Fall intoGap of mediocrity / Chainheadquarters' newEmbarcadero building disappoints,” SFGate,June11,2001,accessedonline February 13,2024,https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/fall-into-gap-of-mediocrity-chain-headquarters-3314988.php
Fig. 146. OneTrinity Center (1145MarketStreet,1989) by Backen, Arrigoni& Ross(BAR).
Fig. 147. 900Kearny Street(1989) by William Podesto is thePostmodern pair to the1907SentinelBuilding
Fig. 148. San Francisco Centre(WestfieldShopping Mall,865MarketStreet) by Whisler/Patriwasopenedin 1988,andlater expandedto theadjacenthistoric Emporium Building sitein 2006by Kohn Pedersen Fox.
Fig. 150. Skidmore, Owings& Merrill(SOM) builtatleast30high-rise officetowersandhotels in downtown San Francisco in the twentieth century, making itthefirm with themostextensive impacton thecity’s skyline.
Some commercial Postmodern properties utilize retained historicalfeatures,including facades of historic buildings.Referto theHistoricPreservation Movement & Adaptive Resue sectionof Historic Context: San Francisco in the Late 20 th Century.
Residential Postmodernism
Postmodernism has a wide range of expressions inresidentialarchitecture inSanFranciscofromplayfuland colorful kitsch toindustrial collage aesthetictocontextual brickand stuccocluster housing to fullyhistoricist pastiche revivalstyles Inmanycases,the influenceof the 1989ResidentialDesignGuidelines canbe identified in the use of baywindows,cornices,and historicalreferences,butitis alsoinresidentialarchitecture thatthe unique aesthetics ofparticular architects ismost evident;referalsoto HistoricContext:SanFranciscoin the Late 20th Centuryformoreonthe 1989ResidentialDesignGuidelines Withthe rise of Postmodernism,architects were empowered tomine the depths of architecturalhistory as wellas the vernacularand everyday,mixing highbrowandlow-brow. Architectural historian Sally Woodbridge,inheressay“ArcadiaRevisited”forthe revised and expandededitionof Bay Area Houses (1988),observedthatthe BayArea Traditionof residentialarchitecture had always borrowed froma varietyof eclecticsources.While notutilizing the terminologyof Postmodernism,she argued that:
[…] the decade from1976 tothe late eighties has shown – toparaphrase MarkTwain– thatthe reports of the tradition’s deathhave beenhighlyexaggerated.The regionalstraininBayArea designis alive and well;itcontinues tomutate inhealthyways.[…]The currenttaste for historical referenceindesignhasproducedadaptations– evendirectquotations – of the stylistic hallmarks of Bernard Maybeck,ErnestCoxhead,and WilliamW.Wurster,as wellas the anonymous ruraland urbanbuildings of the past.”234
The irreverentad-hocapproachof mixing styles,influences,and materials could borderonkitsch,butwas generallyimbued witha sense of humorand playfulness.AlthoughPostmodernism,particularlyas theorized by RobertVenturi and Charles Jencks,is ostensiblyaboutcommunicationinarchitecture,not allmembers of the public,orother architects,appreciated this message,and Postmodernismwas practiced inSanFrancisco residentialarchitecture fora fairlyfleeting period betweenthe late 1970s and 1990s.
One of the earliestexamples of Postmodernresidentialarchitecture inSanFranciscois a duplex inBernal Heights byRobertMittelstadt(21-23 ProspectAvenue,1975-79) thathas the gabled formof a typicalSan Franciscorowhouse,butwithunfinished wood siding;a baywindow capped bya projecting fanlight;a porthole window;and wood lattice inthe gable end where earlierVictorianera residences would have more elaborate ornamentation (Fig.151).Themostunique Postmodern featuresof the residence are the four Doriccolumns that hang suspended fromthe ceiling inside the double-heightupperunit.Byturns contextualand shocking,the building mixed Classicaland vernacularreferences inanunpolished (almostseeminglyunfinished)mannerthat was unprecedented.Itwas featured inand onthe coverof GlobalArchitecture’s GA Houses 11 issue “Special Feature:New Waves inAmericanArchitecture.” 235
234 Sally Woodbridge, “Arcadia Revisited” in Bay Area Houses,313-4.
235 “R.Mittelstadt Duplex,” OfHouses,accessed online February 13,2024,https://ofhouses.com/post/172263654935/534-robert-mittelstadt-r-mittelstadtduplex; and“Special Feature:NewWavesinAmerican Architecture,” GA Houses 11 (Tokyo,Japan:GlobalArchitecture, May1982).
Fig.151.TheR.MittelstadtDuplex(21-23ProspectAvenue,1975-79), designedbylocalarchitectRobertMittelstadtis oneofthefirstexamples,ifnotthefirst,ofPostmodernresidentialarchitectureinSanFrancisco.Itmixesvernacular, Victorian,andClassicalreferencesinamannerthatwasunprecedentedlocally.FourDoriccolumnshang,suspended from thedouble-heightupper unit.
Inadditiontoprojects byFrankO.Gehry,GwathmeySiegeland RobertA.M.Stern,Susana Torre,and Tod Williams, GA Houses 11 features fourprojects bySanFranciscoarchitectDanielSolomon the GloverDuplex (1517 GloverStreet,1981), BellairDuplex (Solomon/StauffacherSolomonResidence,30 BellairPlace,1973),Castro Commons (2425 MarketStreet,1982,withPaulettTaggart)and anunbuilthousing projectcalled Francisco Reservoir(Fig. 152 and Fig. 153).DanielSolomonmade importantcontributions toSanFranciscourbandesign and planning throughrigorous studies of historical urbanblock and residentialtypologies thatinformed documents suchas the 1989 ResidentialDesignGuidelines,and he was a co-founderof the Congress of New Urbanism.His extensive portfolioof housing projects inSanFranciscoalsoincludes some of the finestexamples of contextual Postmodernism, whichdraw onBayRegionTraditionand SanFranciscovernacularhousing typologies,manyof whichwonlocaland nationalarchitecture awards.236
While some residentialarchitecture builtduring this period was a pastiche historicistrevival(discussed infurther detailbelow),otherSanFranciscoarchitects,like Solomon,found fruitfulexplorations of historic and vernacular precedents tocreate contextualPostmodernistdesign.Althoughthe firmpaved the waytoward New Modernist
236 “Recognition,” Daniel Solomon, accessed online February13,2024,https://www.danielsolomon.us/recognition/; Shay, New Architecture San Francisco, 123-127;andDanielSolomon, ReBuilding (NewYork:Princeton Architectural Press,1992).
SanFranciscoarchitect JeremyKotas broughthis interestinarchitecturalhistory undoubtedly developed over the course of extensive survey fieldworkforthe 1976 DCP Surveywhile working forthe SanFranciscoPlanning Department and the earlyBayArea regionof eclecticismas exhibited inthe works of architects suchas Ernest Coxhead and Bernard Maybecktohis explorations as architect(Fig. 155 and Fig. 156).237 Kotas’s influence is particularly feltalong LaidleyStreetinGlenPark,where he designed orextensivelyremodeled atleastfive houses expressing aneclecticrange of approaches toPostmodernism(Fig. 159 and Fig. 163).Kotas’s work embodies the eclecticismof Postmodernarchitecture byturns playful,humorous,evenkitschy as wellas acutelyaware of localvernacularand historical architectural references.
Fig. 155. Bader Bloom House(a.k.a.Solar Energy Research AccumulationRetention andConservation Houseor SEARCHouse) at715Florida Streetby Jeremy Kotasbuiltin 1981exemplifiesthe playfulkitsch sideof Postmodernism with a Neapolitan color paletteandcheapmaterialslikepaintedplywood anda canvas awning. Thebuilding hassincebeen expandedwith a largefront addition and hasbeen painted mono-chromegray.
(Source: Jeremy Kotas.)
Fig.156. CottageRow(2910California Street, 1989) by Kotas/Pantaleoniutilizesplayful vernacularreferencestoVictorianeracottages to createseveraldistinctunitson a small urban site.
(Source:Shay, New Architecture San Francisco, 74.)
SanFranciscoarchitect JeremyKotas broughthis interestinarchitecturalhistory undoubtedly developed over the course of extensive surveyfieldworkforthe 1976 DCP Surveywhile working forthe SanFranciscoPlanning Department and the earlyBayArea regionof eclecticismas exhibited inthe works of architects suchas Ernest Coxhead and Bernard Maybecktohis explorations as architect(Fig. 155 and Fig. 156).238 Kotas’s influence is particularly feltalong LaidleyStreetinGlenPark,where he designed orextensivelyremodeled atleastfive houses expressing aneclecticrange of approaches toPostmodernism(Fig. 159 and Fig. 163).Kotas’s work embodies the eclecticismof Postmodernarchitecture byturns playful,humorous,evenkitschy as wellas acutelyaware of localvernacularand historical architectural references.
237 Woodbridge, “Arcadia Revisited” in Bay Area Houses,340-3.
238 Woodbridge, “Arcadia Revisited” in Bay Area Houses,340-3.
Donald MacDonald,now bestknown forhis specialtyinbridgedesign,beganhiscareerinSanFranciscofocused onhousing, including small-scale and affordable housing typologies thatfitinwithexisting neighborhoods. These ranged fromcottages thatlooklike prototypicalgable-roofed houses withsashwindows thatmake unexpecteduse of once-commonvernacularboard-and-battensiding,toa bizarrelyfungrouping of condos that explode and skew typicalbaywindow and roof forms (Fig. 157 and Fig. 158).
Fig. 157. Germania StreetHouses(196-198Germania Street,1984) isoneof severalprojectsby Donald MacDonaldthatexploredlow-cost,affordablehousing using vernacular references.Theseboard-and-batten pitchedroof houseswereoriginally paintedredwith whitebattens.239
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 158. Hallam Street,a smallmid-blockstreetin SoMa, hasaneclecticmixofPostmodernresidences.Thetriplexat theright(41-45Hallam Street,1990) isrepeatedfour times on thisblock,andthedesign of themiddleresidence(35 Hallam Street,1991) isreplicatedin a cluster on Sumner Streetin SoMa.Theresidenceatleft(33Hallam Street, 1992) isarareexampleofironicClassicisminSanFrancisco Postmodernarchitecture.Allthreebuildingsareby Donald MacDonald.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
As previouslynoted,the 1989 ResidentialGuidelines,while intended toprovide parameters ratherthan mandates,had the normative effectof codifying baywindows withinresidentialdesign.However,architects have experimented toproduce a wide range of interpretations of SanFrancisco’s mostubiquitous and quintessentialresidentialfeature (Fig. 159).
239 "CaliforniaCulture," Arts + Architecture (1984),50.
SanFranciscoPostmodern architecture tends toward more contextualand vernacularexpressions;however, someexamplesofthe ‘collageaesthetic’existaround South Park,other areasofSoMa,andPotrero Hill(Fig.160). Harkening toFrank Gehry’s Santa Monica House (1991),mundane and industrialmaterials are combined or collagedinunexpectedways.TheBrownResidence(69GrandViewAvenue,1997),designed byFrankIsrael,was completed posthumouslyand is a rare example of the Los Angeles Schoolof Postmodernism,whichwas developed bya loose cohortof architects including Gehry,EricOwenMoss,and Morphosis and embodies what Jencks has referred toas “radicaleclecticism”and “dissonantcollage”(Fig. 161).240
241 TheGlickman Residence received ameritawardfromthe CaliforniaCouncil of theAmerican Institute of Architects in1988;“Honor Awards,1988,” Architecture California 10,no.5(May/June1988),26.
Fig. 160. 271Shipley StreetCondominiums(1992, Sternberg Architects) in SoMa typifiesthe‘collage aesthetic’of Postmodernism thatutilizesa mix of materialsandforms,including moreindustrialor mundanematerials.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig.161.BrownResidence(69GrandViewAvenue,1997) byFrankIsraelatrightisarareSanFranciscoexampleof theLosAngelesSchoolof Postmodernism.Thebuilding atleft(65GrandViewAvenue,2000) isby Levy Art+ Architecture.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
While woodshingledresidentialarchitecture iscommonly associatedwiththe BayArea RegionalTradition,there is significantoverlap instyle,form,and materialbetweenthe Third BayTradition,builtinthe 1960s and 1970s, and contextualPostmodernism in SanFranciscointhe 1980s and 1990s. Inparticular,there are a numberof examples of shingled and wood-clad Postmodernresidences inSanFranciscothatdraw onthe precedents of the Third BayTradition,butthathave more overtClassicalorhistoricist references and ornament,suchas the Hermitage Condominiums (1020 VallejoStreet,1982,George Homsey of EHDD);invoke humor,as inthe Owl House (140 LaidleyStreet, 1989,Kotas/Shaffer);orthathave more exaggerated contextualreferences suchas the gridded baywindows of FultonMews (443 FultonStreet,1982,DanielSolomon)orthe centralchimney and projecting stairtowerof the GleesonResidence (610 Rhode Island Street, 1991,DanielSolomon)(Fig. 162 -Fig. 164).242
242 Woodbridge, “Arcadia Revisited” in Bay Area Houses,313-55.
Fig.162.TheHermitageCondominiums(1020Vallejo Street,1982) was designedby GeorgeHomsey of Esherick,Homsey,Dodge& Davis (EHDD) andtakecuesfrom theneighboring FirstBay Tradition residences,including theblackwood balusterson a WillisPolkdesignedresidence.243
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig.163.JeremyKotasinjectshumor and double-coding into thisresidence,often referredto asthe“OwlHouse” (140 Laidley Street, 1989,Kotas/Shaffer),and hasreferencesto Bay Tradition shingling.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
243 DaveWeinstein, “NoSecond Fiddle: Esherick sidekick is aforceof hisown inarchitecture’s Third BayTradition,” SFGate,December 4,2004,accessed online February 13,2024,https://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/No-second-fiddle-Esherick-sidekick-is-a-force-2631892.php
Fig. 164. Fulton Mews(443 Fulton Street,1982) isthe productofDanielSolomon’s rigorousstudy of historical San Francisco urban block patterns.Solomon uses earlier Bay Tradition architecture,aswellasthe plainclapboardrearfacades of typicalSan Francisco architecture,bay windows, andindustrialgriddedsash windowsfor an eclectic mix of references.
(Source:DanielSolomon | Mithun.)
Localpractitioners associated withresidentialPostmodernisminclude,butare not limited to(alphabetical):Ace Architects,BackenArrigoni &Ross (BAR),David Baker,JonathanBulkley,Fisher-FriedmanAssociates,GaryGee, George Homsey(Esherick,Homsey,Dodge &Davis),Hood MillerAssociates,JeremyKotas,LevyArt+ Architecture, Donald MacDonald,StephenAllenRoake,James Shay,DanielSolomon,David Sternberg,and Jorge de Quesada.244
Straight Historicist Revivals
Informed bythe principles of New Urbanismand the 1989 ResidentialDesignGuidelines,the residential complexes inSouthBeach,manyof whichwere builtinthe 1980s and early1990s whenPostmodernismwas at peakpopularityinSanFrancisco,exhibita pastiche of historicism suchas the DelanceyStreetCenter(The Embarcaderoand DelanceyStreet,1992,BackenArrigoni&Ross) complex whichis rendered instuccowith pyramidaltile roofs,wood brackets,and smallbalconettes ina Neo-Mediterraneanstyle (Fig. 165)
Postmodernism openedupthe historical architecturalcanon againassource material,andarchitects referenced and borrowed fromthe pastwhile experimenting inscale,composition,and form.The late twentiethcentury alsosawariseinmore pastiche andderivativehistoricism insuburbanMcMansionsaswellastractdevelopment and clustered multi-family housing inSanFrancisco. These straighthistoricist revivals oftenhave surface applicationof historicist features and lacka sophisticationof designand workmanship.
Examples inSanFranciscoinclude various “Neo”styles (Neo-Mansard,Neo-Eclectic,Neo-Traditional,NeoSpanishColonial, Neo-Mediterranean),as wellas mockVictorianand Edwardianapartments.These historicist
244 Shay, New Architecture San Francisco
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
designsweredevelopedascompatibleinfillbuildings,respectfulof the scaleandexisting designcontextof older residentialneighborhoods and neighborhood commercialcorridors, consistent withthe principles of the 1989 ResidentialDesignGuidelines.Examples include mockEdwardianmixed use buildings,suchas those at915 Irving Street(1989)and 925 Irving Street(1985),thathave similarbaywindows,wood spandreland window surrounds,and cornice details totrue Edwardianera buildings,butwithmodernmaterials,less ornamentation, and lacking comparable workmanship (Fig. 166).Otherexamples,like VictorianMews (Block4070,1978, Barovetto,Ruscitto&Barovetto),applyVictorianera features as pastiche tobuildings thathave a clearly contemporaryscale and massing (Fig. 178).These examples of pastiche and derivative historiciststyles donot meetthe eligibilitycriteria forsignificance underCriterionC/3 fortheirarchitecturaldesignalone.
Postmodern architecture was utilized ina range of civic,institutional,and recreationalpropertytypes inSan Franciscowithvaried and eclecticexpressions.The Postmodernistarchitecture of civicgovernmentbuildings, particularly those around the CivicCenter,tend tobe staid,contextualexamples thateitherutilize Beaux-Arts ornamentation such as the new mainlibrary,100 LarkinStreet,1996,PeiCobb Freed &Partners withSMWM orbalance monumental scaleandexaggeratedfeatureswithsubduedgraytonesthatcomplementthe granite of olderneighboring buildings suchas Davies SymphonyHall(201 VanNess Avenue,1980) and PublicUtilities CommissionState Office Building (505 VanNess Avenue, 1986),bothbySOM (Fig. 167).245 Onthe otherhand, cultural institutions suchas those atYerba Buena Centerexhibitthe expressive and playfulside of Postmodernism. The SanFranciscoMuseumof ModernArt(151 3rd Street,1995,MarioBotta)is executed ina warmbrick thatuses the orientationof the brickunits tocreate a patterned ornamentation Blackand white striped granite is used atthe columned base and projecting oculus atrium.The Children’s CreativityMuseum (221 4th Street,1998, Adèle Naudé Santos)is awashwithpastelcolors,and the evocative building shapes invite exploration(Fig. 168).
245 MIG, San Francisco Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Inventory (prepared forSan Francisco Planning Department, adopted September 2015),accessedonline February 13,2024, https://default.sfplanning.org/Preservation/cultural_landscape/CivicCenterCLI_FinalReport.pdf
Otherinstitutional examples of Postmodernismappeartobe fairlyrare inSanFrancisco,butknownexamples include publicschools,recreationalfacilities,and religious buildings (Fig. 169).One of the earliestknown examples of Postmodernistarchitecture builtinSanFrancisco was the MargaretHayward Playground (1016 LagunaStreet)building byBeverlyWillis;completedin1978(since demolished),the building had a playfulstage set-like formwitha Palladiandoorway,and a blue and dustypinkcolorscheme (Fig. 170) 246 One of the last major Postmodern buildings constructed inSanFranciscois alsoa recreationalfacility the Giants Ballpark(24 Willie MaysPlaza)designed byHOK Sport(now Populous),whichopened forthe 2000 baseballseasonand was one of severalnew Postmodern“retro”ballparks thatwere partof a nationalshifttomove sports stadiums back into the urbanenvironment.247 ReferalsotoThe PublicRealm:CulturalInstitutions,Waterfront,POPOS&Public Art inHistoric Context: San Francisco in the Late 20 th Century
Anearthquake in1971 inSanFernandoled tostate-wide concerns aboutseismicsafetyand code requirements forschool buildings,and as a resultsome SanFranciscoschools were stripped of ornamentalfeatures,forfear thattheymight falloff the building,while otherolderschoolbuildings were fullydemolished.248 Alamo ElementarySchool (250 23rd Avenue,1926),forexample,was fullyremodeled froma Collegiate Gothicstyle toa colorful, Postmodern style.249 The 1920 TudorRevivalstyle Argonne ElementarySchool(680 18th Avenue)
247 Eric Wills, “PaulGoldberger onWhatMakesaGood Ballpark,” Architect, October 15,2019,accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/paul-goldberger-on-what-makes-a-good-ballpark_o
248 Page& Turnbull, 1351 42nd Avenue – Francis Scott Key Annex Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1 (prepared forSanFrancisco Planning Department, October 8,2019),30.
249 Sonnier Francisco, Golden Age of School Construction, San Francisco, California Historic Context Statement – Draft (SanFranciscoPlanning Department, 2009,66-67.
Fig.
Fig. 168. Children’sCreativity Museum (2214th Street,1998) by AdèleNaudéSantoswith a playgrounddesignedby M. PaulFriedberg.
HistoricContextStatement
building wasdemolishedin1971,and laterreplaced witha Postmodernistbuilding in1994. Garfield Elementary School (40 FilbertStreet,1979)byGeorge Homseyof EHDDwas lauded forits contextualdesignonTelegraph Hill.250 The new Moscone ElementarySchooland Las Americas Children’s Center(2576 HarrisonStreet,architect unknown) was the firstnew schoolbuilding tobe constructed inthe cityin20 years;the schoolbroke ground in 1996,and is designed inthe Postmodernstyle.251 The UrbanSchool(1563 Page Street,1994,SMWM)is an example of residential-scaled contextualPostmodernismused fora private school.
Fig. 169. BethelTemple(1325Valencia Street,1995) was designedby MarkLechowskiof Allen-Drever-Lechowski.The churchhasahighlyexpressedsteeframestructure,which was a tropeof LateModernism,butthedouble-coding of the mountain range-likeroof putsthisbuilding morein the Postmodern tradition.Builtby a Swedish American congregation,thechurch wasrenamedtheBethelChristian Churchto avoidany possiblemis-associationswith Jim Jones andThePeople’sTemple.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 170. TheMargaretHaywardPlayground Building (1016Laguna Street) wasdesignedby Beverly Willsin 1978andisoneof theearliest known builtexamplesof architectural PostmodernisminSanFrancisco.Thebuildingwas demolishedin 2019.
(Source:Beverly WillisArchive.)
250 Homsey’s design forGarfieldElementary School wasawardeda1982 HonorAward and wasfeaturedina1984 specialissue of Arts+ Architecture on California design; “GarfieldElementarySchool, SanFrancisco,” Architecture California (July/August 1982),20-21;and"CaliforniaCulture," Arts + Architecture (1984),50.
251 “Schools inMission break ground,” San Francisco Examiner,September 21,1996.
PostmodernismEvaluation Criteria
Statementof Significance:
ArchitecturalPostmodernismemergedasareactiontoandevolutionofModernism,andwas informedbynascentcritiquesinthewritingsof JaneJacobs,RobertVenturi,andAldo Rossi of tabula rasa Modernistplanning andtheperceivedbanality of thefunctionalism and abstractioninpuristModernistorthodoxy.Venturi’sdeclaration“lessisabore”wasa rallying crytoarchitectstoembracethemessyvitalityofcontemporarylife,andto experimentmore freely withbothhighbrowhistoricalreferencesandlowbrowkitsch andvernacular sources. Postmodernarchitecturehastakenmanyformsbutischaracterizedgenerally by itsplurality andbyaninterestincommunicationandnarrativethrougharchitecturaldesign. Asopposed to thedissonantcollageof theLosAngelesSchoolof Postmodernism,San Francisco Postmodernismhighlightedcontextualandregionalinfluences,drawingfromlocalhistorical referencematerialanda long tradition of eclecticism in theBay Region Tradition. In San Francisco,architecturalPostmodernism wasinfluencedby anti-Manhattanization and redevelopmentsentiments,aburgeoningpreservationmovement,andnewurban planning policies.Watershedmomentsin localarchitecturalPostmodernism weretheinstallation of the Strada Novissima from theVeniceBiennalein FortMason Center in 1982,showcasing architecturalPostmodernism,andtheadoption of the1985Downtown Plan.
SignificantexamplesofPostmodernarchitecture includeexcellentanddistinctiveexamples of thestyle,drawing from thecharacter-defining featuresoutlinedbelowwhilerecognizing theinherenteclecticism andpluralism of thestyle.Notableexamplesof Postmodernist architecturein San Francisco includeresidentialproperties,aswellassomeexceptional civic,institutional,andcommercial high-riseexamples.Significantexamplesof Postmodernistarchitecture,especially astheperiodof significancebeginsabout50years ago,willtypically beby locally or nationally notablearchitectsor firms,andmay have demonstratedsignificancethrough publication and/or awards.Dueto therelatively recent construction of Postmodernistbuildings,eligibleexamplesareexpectedto havea high degreeof integrity.
PeriodofSignificance: Mid-1970s-2000
JustificationofPeriod ofSignificance: Theperiodofsignificancebeginsinthemid-1970s,whenarchitecturalPostmodernismbegan to beconstructedin San Francisco.While NewModernism becameincreasingly popular in the1990s,Postmodernismcontinuedtobeutilizedthrough the1990s,with only fewnotable examplescompletedin theearly 2000s.252
GeographicBoundaries: Citywide TheFinancialDistrictandDowntown/Civic Center havesomeof thehighest concentrations,along with SoMa andSouth Beach.Other residentialandinstitutional examplesarescatteredthrough other neighborhoodsbuttendto bein centralandeastern neighborhoods.
Aproperty may be considered aneligible resource underCriterionC/3,if itmeets the following:
• Constructed during the period of significance (mid-1970s to2000)and meets relevantcriterion considerations forproperties of the recentpast;referto“RecentPast&Considerations forResources Less than50 Years Old”inthe Introduction of this report.
• Significantexamples of Postmodernismthatmayqualifyas eligible historicresources evenpartof the ‘recentpast,’willbe excellentordistinctive expressions of Postmodernism.Comparative analysis with othercontemporaneous examples of Postmodernismis importanttounderstanding whetherthe propertymayrise toa levelof significance foreligibilityunderCriterionC/3.
o Qualityof designorsignificance maybe demonstrated (butis notguaranteed)through publicationinarchitectural journals of record,designawards,subsequentarchitectural monographs orbooks,and/orassociationwithanArchitect or Builderof Merit,ora prominent architectural firm.
o Evaluators should recognize thatPostmodernisminSanFrancisco is distinctive and oftenmuch more contextual than the flamboyant,dissonantcollage Postmodernismof the Los Angeles School or otherstrains of Postmodern Classicism. However,eligible examples of contextual Postmodernism should still be distinctive expressions thathave exceptionalorunique qualities of design.Contextualbuildings thatmightbe described as “good background buildings” supportthe qualityof urbandesignand neighborhood characterbutare notlikelytobe individuallyeligible underCriterionC/3.
o Properties exhibiting historicist derivative and pastiche architecture fromthe late twentieth century(including Neo-Mansard,Neo-Victorian,and other‘Neo’revival styles) are noteligible underCriterion C/3 fortheirarchitecturaldesignalone.
o Postmodern residentialarchitecture mayshare overlapping characteristics withThird Bay Traditionarchitecture,whichdoes notpreclude properties frombeing distinctive,significant examples of residentialarchitecture underCriterionC/3.
• Mustretaincharacter-defining features and have highlevels of integrity,particularlyintegrityof design, materials,and workmanship.
• Rarityof anextantpropertytype inthe Postmoderniststyle maybe a considerationindetermining eligibility.
• Properties thatinclude anoriginal, associated publicartworkand/ordesigned landscape,including residentialgardens,corporate plazas,and institutionalgrounds,should be evaluated comprehensively. Inother words,the landscape and/orpublicartshould be evaluated as partof the overalldesignof the propertyand factored intoconsiderations of significance and integrity,and identificationof characterdefining features.
o Insome cases,apublicartwork and/ordesignedlandscape mayalsorise toa levelof individual significance.Referalsotothe evaluative frameworks infollowing historiccontextstatements: Public Art, Monuments & Murals (inprogress)and Landscapes (1848 -1989) (planned).
• Otherconsiderations:
o Properties designed orconstructed byanArchitectorBuilderof Merit,particularlyif the resource is a rare orexceptionalexample of the architectorbuilder’s workinSanFrancisco, should be considered.Refertothe EvaluationFrameworkin Architecture, Planning, & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies forfurtherinformation.
o Examples of adaptive reuse (including live/workunits)mayinclude Postmodernistadditions or alterations,whichmaybe considered foreligibilityunderCriterionC/3 as examples of Postmodernism; however,examples have notbeenidentified during the course of researching this historic contextstatement.Eligible properties would include distinctive,fullexamples of Postmodernist designthatare clearlyvisible and expressed atthe exteriororwithinthe public realm;inotherwords,aninterior remodelofanexisting building foranadaptive reuse is unlikely tobe eligible underCriterionC/3 forassociationwiththe theme of Postmodernism.
▪ Live/workartistloft conversions thatadaptanexisting building withprimarilyinterior alterations are unlikelytobe significantunderCriterionC/3 forassociationwiththe live/workconversion, butmaybe significantunderothercriteria orforother associations suchas withartisticorcounterculture communities ormovements
o ApropertymayalsoqualifyunderCriterionC/3 as a contributortoa historicdistrictif itis situated withina geographicallycohesive grouping of buildings related bydesignor byan architector developer.Inordertomeetlocal,state,and/ornationalregistrationrequirements as a district,a majorityof contributing properties would need toretainmostof theircharacterdefining features.Generally,contributors toa historicdistrict need notmeetas higha threshold forintegrityas individualbuildings;however,atthis time,a highdegree of integritywould be expected forPostmodernistbuildings if partof aneligible historicdistrictas notmuchtime has passed since theiroriginalconstruction.
▪ Corporate Postmodernist buildings are concentrated inthe FinancialDistrictand Union Squareareas,butaregenerallyinterspersed withbotholderand newerbuildings.Thus, itis unlikely thatagrouping of CorporatePostmodernist buildingswould beeligibleas a historic districtonly forassociationwiththeirCorporate Postmodernist architectural style underCriterion C/3. Likewise,Postmodernistcivicbuildings are interspersed with olderBeaux-Arts buildings inthe CivicCenterand are designed ina sensitive and contextual manneras appropriate additions withinthe culturallandscape,butthe
Postmodern buildings are unlikelytobe eligible as a historicdistrictonlyfortheir associationwithPostmodernist architecture underCriterion C/3.
▪ Contiguous clusters or groupings of residentialPostmodernistbuildings maybe eligible as smallhistoricdistricts if theycollectivelyexpress a distinctive representationof Postmodern architecture and/orare exemplaryof the workof an Architectof Merit.253
Character-Defining Features
Character-definingfeatures of Postmodernistarchitecture significantunderCriterion C/3are those elements that representits significantdesignqualities relative toits date of construction. Postmodernismhas a range of expressions thatvarybetweenpropertytypes and include ironicand Classicalidioms,collage aesthetic, contextual and regionaldesign,and more straighthistoricism. As such,a listof characteristicfeatures associated withPostmodernism should notbe understood ortreated as finite 254 The following are features are associated withsignificantPostmodern properties underCriterionC/3,and are grouped according topropertytype:
Commercial Postmodernism
• Massing is oftenstepped backorotherwise brokenup byfeatures suchas windows orornamentation.
• Steelframe construction is typicalinhigh-rises Smallercommercialbuildings mayhave other construction methods.
• Buildings typicallyhave a tripartite compositionwithan articulated base,shaft,and top.
• Building tops are highlyarticulated ratherthanflat,terminating in roof shapes thatmaybe stepped back,triangular,faux-Mansard,orcapped withspires.
• Typicalcladding types include polished and unpolished granite and concrete orothermanufactured panels thatgive the appearance of stone.
• Fenestrationmaybe uniformatthe shaft,butoftenis more divided withdifferentwindow sizes and groupings across the façade.
• Glazing is typicallydarkormirrored.
• Architectural features and applied ornamentationoftenhave anexaggerated presence orscale.
• Inadditiontonew,applied ornamentation,buildings mayincorporate remnanthistorical features from the builtenvironment including formerbuilding facades orornamentaldetails.
• Columns and arcades atthe ground levelare common.
• Buildings maybe setbackona designed plaza orbuiltoutto the lotlines.
• Mostdowntowncommercial Postmodern buildings are subjecttothe provisions of the 1985 Downtown Planandinclude aprivatelyownedpublicopenspace(POPOS)whichmaybeaplaza,park,roof deck,or atrium, and publicart.POPOSmayinclude fountains orseating areas.
Residential Postmodernism
• Buildings maybe builtouttofitsmallurbanlots,butmassing is oftenirregularorincludes irregular projecting features.
• Cladding types varyand include a wide range of materials,butoftenrespond tothe surrounding context.Materials mayinclude regionalmaterials suchas wood shingles,wood board orboard-andbatten,orstucco. Inpost-industrial neighborhoods a ‘collage aesthetic’is more commonwithmaterials including corrugated metal,sheetmetal,and composite panels.
253 Knownclusters of Postmodernist architecture by Donald MacDonald arelocated in SoMaand Duboce Triangle/WesternAddition and should be evaluated asgroupings. A number of examplesof Postmodernist architecture by JeremyKotasexistalongLaidley Street,but areinterspersed amongst homes of manystyles; assuch, they maynot meetthedefinition of eligibility asa contiguous historic district and bebetterevaluated individually.
254 Thesameis trueforother LateModernistand Postmodernist styles which haveawide, andsometimes divergent, rangeof expressions especially across property types.
• Playfulorvibrantuse of colormaybe used insome cases butis distinctlynota feature of Postmodernism inthe CivicCenter,where Postmodernbuildings are respectfulof the graytone of the Beaux-Arts civicbuildings.
Integrity Considerations
Apropertyeligible underCriterionC/3 should retainthe majorityof its aspects of integritydating tothe period whenthe significantdesignwas completed,withanemphasis of integrityof design,materials,and workmanship. The building’s significantdesignqualities should remainreadilyapparent,and the majorityof original features and materials thatconveythe significantdesignshould remainextant.Given the factthatmost Postmodern properties are less than50 years old,individuallyeligible properties should retaina highlevelof integrity.Insome cases,particularlyrare orearlypropertytype examples orsignificantprojects maywarrant considerationof integrityif alterations are primarilylimited topaintorreplacementof windows ordoors. Significantalterations to exteriorcladdingand windowopenings are not typicalbutmaybecome more common inthe future.Replacementwindow systems should be considered whenevaluating forintegrityof designand materials;however,in-kind replacementof window systems thatretains the originalfenestrationpatternand visualcharacterof the building maynotresultinanoverallloss of integrity.
Use of playfulorvibrantcoloris a typicalfeature of some idioms of Postmodernistarchitecture particularlyin residentialand institutional properties outside of Downtownand the CivicCenter and maybe considered whenassessinghistoric integrityandidentifying character-definingfeatures.Changes tocolorthroughrepainting havethe potentialto affectintegrityof design particularlywhere vibrantcoloris a significantcharacter-defining feature orobscure originalmaterials,butshould be considered ona case-by-case basis.Alterations tooffice and hotellobbies and plazas are common.Originaldesignand materials of publiclyaccessible lobbies and plazas,including publicartwork,cancontribute tothe overallcharacterof Postmodernbuildings downtown The loss of anoriginallobby,particularlyif alterations are primarilylimited tointerior spaces,is unlikelyto diminishoverallintegrityto the pointof ineligibility.However,cumulative alterations tofeatures suchas lobbies, ground floor windowsand storefronts,plazas,publicartwork,and otherfeatures mayresultina lackof integrity.
Integrityof location is expected forindividuallyeligible Postmodernproperties.Inanurbanenvironmentsuchas SanFrancisco,itis expected thatthe broad setting and nearbyproperties willchange overtime;changes tothe area surrounding a propertyare generallyunlikelytobe a factorinevaluating late twentiethcenturyproperties underCriterion C/3.
Fig. 172. 388MarketStreet(1986) wasdesignedby Skidmore, Owings&Merrill(SOM),whichwasoneof themostprolific firms in downtown high-riseconstruction in thelatetwentieth century.Thisbuilding exemplifiedthefirm’s identity shiftfrom stalwartModerniststowillingPostmodernists.Theslickpolished graniteandtripartitecomposition arecharacteristic of downtown Postmodernism.Themassing of theflatiron building a circleenvelopedby a triangle isdistinctiveand executedin a manner thatexhibitsthehigh quality of design achievedby many (although notall) of SOM’slatetwentieth centuryhigh-rises.Thebuildingappearseligibleunder Criterion 3
Fig.174.TheGleeson Residence(610 RhodeIslandStreet,1989-91) is exemplary of DanielSolomon’s regionalistPostmodernism.The exaggeratedpresenceof thecentral chimney andthesmallrepeating squarewindowson theprojecting baysprovidean ambiguoussenseof scale,andtheasphaltshinglesare bothfamiliarandunexpected.Daniel Solomon shouldbeevaluatedasa potentiallocalArchitectof Merit.The residenceappearseligibleunder CaliforniaRegisterCriterion3.Further research wouldbeneededto establish potential“exceptional significance”underNationalRegister Criterion CandCriterion Consideration G.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 175. ThePostmodern live/work loftsat1568Indiana Street(1999, Gary Gee) includeplayfulforms, color,andportholewindows. However,thebuilding doesnot exhibita levelof craftsmanshipor distinctivedesign thatappearsto rise to thelevelof individualsignificance under Criterion C/3,especially as an exampleof therecentpast(lessthan 45yearsold).
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 176. Sumner Rowhouses(1-7Sumner Street,1993) by DonaldMacDonald.ThesePostmodernresidencesrespondto thepost-industrialcontextof SoMa andincludeuniquely expressiveandunusualbay windowsandsheddormers,as wellasindustrialmetalpanelcladding. Theresidenceatthe righthasbeen paintedblack,which diminishesthedesign andmaterialintegrity of theindividualbuilding,but itwould stillcontributeto a smalldistrictof thesefour propertiesas theform anddesign of thebuilding arestilllegible.The grouping isnotlikely to meetthethresholdof “exceptional significance” for NationalRegister Criterion G,butcouldbe eligiblefor theCalifornia Register under Criterion 3. MacDonaldshouldbeevaluatedasa potentialArchitectof Merit.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 177. TheR.MittelstadtDuplex (21-23Prospect Avenue,1975-9) by RobertMittelstadtisavery early exampleof Postmodernism in residential architecturein San Francisco.The originally unfinishedwoodhassincebeen paintedandthe garagedoorreplaced(Fig.151).However,allother originalfeaturesandmaterialsremain,including thehanging Doric columnsattheinterior of the upperunit,visiblethrough thearchedbay window. Thisresidenceisan exceptionalandearly example of Postmodern residentialarchitecturein San Francisco anddespitebeing paintedappearsto be eligibleunder California Register Criterion 3.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 178. Victorian Mews(1978,Barovetto, Ruscitto & Barovetto) isa full-blockcondo complex boundedby 19th,Wisconsin,20th , andCarolina streetsin Potrero Hillthat includethree-story buildingswith Victorian era pastichefeaturespairedwith modern amenitiessuchasa pool,tenniscourts,and parking garages.Thehistoricistpastiche reflectsa 1970sinterestin historic architecture,thepreservation movement, andcontextualurbanism,especially in residentialdesign.However,thistypeof historicistpastichedoesnotrepresentan architecturally significantor distinguished form of Postmodernism andisnoteligible for listing under Criterion C/3for architecturaldesign.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 179. TheSan Francisco Museum of Modern Art(SFMOMA,1513rd Street,1995) by Mario Botta usesorientation of thebrick unitsto createa patternedornamentation, andblackandwhitestripedgraniteisused atthecolumnedbaseandprojecting oculus atrium.A 2016expansion of themuseum designedby Snøhetta resultedin the removaloftheBotta-designed,centralblack graniteinterior staircase.Allother major exterior featuresremain,including the jaggedprofileof an exterior sidestair.As such,theproperty appearsto retain sufficientintegrity for eligibility under CaliforniaRegisterCriterion 3,andmay rise to thelevelof “exceptionalsignificance” under NationalRegister Criterion Cand Criterion Consideration G,asitisoneof the mostexceptionalexamplesof PostmodernisminSanFranciscoandoneof very fewbuildingsby internationally renownedarchitectMario Botta in the UnitedStates.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Theme: NewModernism(late1980s-2000)
New Modernismis anarchitecturalstyle orapproachthatevolved inthe late 1980s as a reactionto Postmodernism, andthat canbeseenasanoffshootof Modernism.While there isnot wideconsensus onhow to name,categorize,ordescribe post-Postmodernarchitecture,the terms “New Modernism”and “Neomodernism” (and,less often,“Meta-Modernism”)have beenused bysome critics and architects. The term“Contemporary” architecture isoftenalsousedasa more generalplaceholder termbutis one thathas a shifting definitionas itis understood to refertoourpresentmomentorgeneration. Partof the challenge incategorizing and describing architecture fromthe 1990s and onward is thatwe donotyetbenefitfrommanydecades orgenerations of distance.Indeed,manyof the practitioners of New Modernisminthe late twentiethcenturyinSan Franciscoare still practicing today,and theirworkcontinues tomature,change,and evolve.
This documentuses the termNew Modernismtosignalthatthe architecture described is,generally,a continuation or evolution of Modernismratherthana revivalof a particulartype of Modernism.This termalso acknowledges thatNew Modernismis continuing toevolve inourpresenttime,and thatthere maybe other usefuldistinctions orsub-categories todescribe various trends and approaches withincontemporarytwentyfirstcentury architecture infuture scholarship. However,the term“Neo-Modernism”has beenand canbe used fairly interchangeablytodescribe architecture afterPostmodernism. Itshould be acknowledged thatmost architects working inthe 1990s and onward would be unlikelytoascribe the term“New Modernist”to themselves ortheirbodyof work(notunlike how mostarchitects rejected the labelof “Postmodernist”),and generallyresistlabelsandcategorizationof architectural style asreductive.255 However,evenif nota “style”inthe stricter sense of earliernineteenthcenturyarchitecturalstyles and earlytwentiethcenturyperiod revivals,New Modernismcandescribe anapproach,series of values,commonformaland materialchoices,and anoverall aestheticthatsets itapartfromLate Modernismand Postmodernism.
New Modernismemerged inthe 1980s as a response toarchitecturalPostmodernism,especiallyhistoricistand Neo-ClassicalPostmodernism,whichhad growninpopularityfromthe 1970s and peaked inthe 1980s.Many architects werebeginningtoperceivePostmodernism astiredand pastiche,anda dead-endforthe avant-garde. KennethFrampton had beenpointedlycriticizing Postmodernismforits superficialityas earlyas 1980 when reviewing the “Presence of the Past”Venice Biennale,and ElizabethFarrelly,alreadyin1986,declared “Post modernismis dead.Some have knownfromthe startthatitwas nomore thana painted corpse.”256 Mitchell Schwarzer,Architectural historian and formerplanner,referredtothe 1980sas the “nadirof architecturaldesign” inSanFrancisco anopinion likelyshared bymanyof the architects whobegantodefine the localNew Modernism.257 Nationally,architects like PeterEisenmanwere partof a loose cohortof architects deemed the “Deconstructivists” or“Deconstructionists” byPhilip Johnsonand MarkWigleyina 1988 exhibitionatthe MOMA inNew YorkCitycalled “Deconstructivist Architecture.”258 Jencks has observed thatDeconstructivist architecture’s “explosive space”had brokenoutof the “dumb box”of Modernism,and while some critics and theorists locate Deconstructivism within Postmodernism, Jencks associated itwithNeo-Modernism,as the
255 Architectural critic CharlesJencksobserved “mostarchitects, likemostpeople, areboredby labels, finding themreductive andconstricting, likeillfittingsuites. Thereis much tobe saidfortheview thatall labels stylistic, ideological, historical distort theperception of architecture and reduced it toverbal categories […] however,words and classifications cannot beavoided in creation andperception.”; Charles Jencks, The New Moderns: From Late- to Neo-Modernism (NewYork:Rizzoli, 1990),17.Theresistancetolabels, and the fuzziness of labels, isfurther evident in Jencks’sinterviewswith architects such asPhilip Johnson, PeterEisenman, Richard Meier,and Fumihiko Maki,in The New Moderns
256 KennethFrampton, “TheNeedforRoots,” republished in Archetype 3,no. 1 (Spring 1982),14;andE.M.Farrelly, “TheNewSpirit,” Architectural Record (August1986),accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/the-new-spirit-by-e-m-farrelly
257 Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide,53.
258 Jencks, The New Moderns,9,212;Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture (NewYork: TheMuseum of Modern Art, NewYork, 1988).
architects were generallyunited intheir“contempt”forPostmodernism.259 While plentyof debate has occurred aboutwhetherDeconstructivism everexistedasastyle or evena meaningfulcategory,the workpresented inthe exhibitiondemonstrated a breakwiththe orthodoxyof Postmodernismand signaled a new avant-garde within the profession.This avant-garde,including Eisenman,RemKoolhass,DanielLibeskind,Zaha Hadid,and others engaged inabstract,asemanticand non-communicative architecture,theory-heavyexplorations of program, process,material,and form. The rare examples of builtDeconstructivist architecture were notbuiltinSan Franciscountil the twenty-first centurywiththe FederalBuilding (90 7th Street,2006 ThomMayne of Morphosis) and JewishContemporaryMuseum(736 MissionStreet,2008,DanielLibeskind).
Otherexplorations ofNewModernismthatbeganinthe 1980sandblossomedinthe 1990srevisitedthetenetsof Modernistarchitecture based onfunction,program,progress inmaterialinnovation,and lackof ornamentor aestheticized materialand structure. While developers,especiallyindowntownSanFrancisco,continued to favor Postmodernism as a populistmode and a safe route throughthe bureaucracyof designreview atthe Planning Department inthe 1980s and eveninto the 1990s,bythe late 1980s,architects soughta new way forward througha returnto Modernistprinciples.Schwarzer,writing in2007,stated that“contemporarydesign shares a greatdealincommonwithmid-centurymodernism,including a concernforinventing and expressing new materials,and investigating and implementing new organizations of space.”260 He furtherobserved that contemporarydesign,whichhe hasalsocalled“The NewModernism,” diverges fromModernismthroughmeans of design(especiallyCADand customand prefabricated materials),the prominence of new buildings inthe publicrealm(including the BilbaoEffect),the architect’s role as a “culturalmediator,”and the move awayfrom the Modernisttabula rasa approachtomore site-specificdesign.261
The shiftawayfromPostmodernismtoNew ModernisminSanFranciscowas signaled withearlyprojects such asthe California DataMart(999 BrannanStreet,1986)byTanner&VanDine,and publiclywiththe 1991 SFMOMA exhibition“Inthe Spirit of Modernism”(Fig. 16).As discussed ingreaterdetailinthe Historic Context: ArchitecturalCriticism,Publications & Exhibitions sectionof this document, the SFMOMAexhibitionwas an explicitresponse tothe excesses of Postmodernism,and included manifestos byeachof the fourarchitects featured JimJennings,JamesShay,WilliamStout,andTannerLeddyMaytumStacy aboutModernismand its relevance totheirworkand contemporarySanFrancisco.The workfeatured inthe exhibitiondemonstrated a return tocertaintenetsof Modernism,butalsothat“sensitivitytosite and context” were now animportantfactor inthe New Modernism.262 Some of the projects featured inthe SFMOMAexhibitionincluded more overt references toearlyModernistarchitecture withwhite stuccocubicmassing à la the InternationalStyle, though suchreferences became increasinglyabstracted inthe minimalapproachthatevolved overthe 1990s and into the twenty-firstcentury (Fig. 180) The establishmentof the new architecture programatCCA,located inSan Franciscoratherthan atthe historic Oakland campus,inthe late1980salsobroughtanew avant-gardeenergyto architectural education,as wellas architecturalpractice,as graduates represented a new generationof designers.
259 Jencks, The New Moderns,274,204.
260 Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide,53.
261 Schwarzer, Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide,53.The‘Bilbao Effect’referstothecommissioning of anew,iconic piece of architecture tostimulate economic development through cultural investment, afterthesuccess of theFrank Gehry-designed GuggenheimMuseum Bilbao in Bilbao, Spain in1997.
262 Thayer, “FourModernists atSFMoMa,” 24.
Fig. 180. A modelof theOliver Residence (340LombardStreet,1996) by Jim Jennings wasfeaturedin the“In theSpiritof Modernism”exhibition atSFMOMA andwas laterrecognizedby Architectural Record asa 1998RecordHouse.Thedesign hasclear referencesbackto InternationalStyle Modernism in thestuccoed,boxy massing andgriddedmetalwindows. Theinterior hasan exposedconcretecylindrical circulationcorewith askylightthatseemsto referencestairwaysby LouisKahn andthe atrium atMario Botta’sSFMOMA.Jennings’ workwouldevolveto epitomizethepure, minimalistendof theNewModernist spectrum.
(Source:Jim JenningsArchitecture.)
The New Modernismof SanFranciscoexplored a returntotenets of Modernism,including designbased on programand function, useof high-techandmodernmaterials,anda lackof applied ornamentation. However,in SanFrancisco,New Modernismtypicallyhas had a more contextualand humane urbanistethic,whichwas,in part,learnedasreactiontothe failures of Modernistplanning and alsoprescribed bylocalregulations and urban designand residentialdesignguidelines.New Modernistresidentialarchitecture inSanFranciscoranges from the ‘industrial chic’ of 1990s live/worklofts tomore pure minimalismcharacterized bysimple geometricforms and simplified materialpalettes of metal,glass,and concrete (Fig. 181).Formore informationonlive/work properties,whichskyrocketed inpopularityinthe 1990s due tolocalregulatorychanges,alongside the rise of the NewModernism,refertothe Live/WorkOrdinancesub-sectionofthe HistoricContext chapterof this report.
Fig.181.Studio&Apartmentsat1022NatomaStreet(1992,right) and1028Natoma Street(2005,left) both by Stanley Saitowitz exhibitthemoreindustrialchic thatwascommon in New Modernistlive/workloftsof the1990sandthemorepure, minimalistaesthetic thatcharacterizessomeof Saitowitz’slater work.Bothbuildingshaveanabstracted,multi-storybaywindow.
(Source:Stanley Saitowitz.)
HistoricContextStatement
Live/worklofts are exclusivelylocated inthe SoMa,Mission,and PotreroHillneighborhoods,and these are the neighborhoods withthe most New Modernistresidentialarchitecture ingeneral.OtherNew Modernist residentialarchitecture is found invarious neighborhoods throughout the city,buttends to be inthe northeastern and easternneighborhoods.Bythe 1990s,veryfew lots were available inthe geographically constrained city of SanFranciscoforindividualpropertyowners tobuyand build a new home.As such,New Modernistresidentialprojects are frequentlyrenovations orsignificantexpansions of existing residences inSan Francisco.263
Although most examples of New Modernismdonotutilize the regionallyspecificmaterialpalette associated withthe BayTraditions,examples of wood cladding canbe found onsome New Modernistsingle-family residences (Fig. 182 and Fig. 183).Otherregionaland contextualcharacteristics canbe found inNew Modernist residentialarchitecture, suchas baywindows, butare typicallyhighlyabstracted. These residentialexamples of New Modernismexhibita balance betweenglobalized Modernarchitecture and regionalspecificity.Kenneth Frampton advocated forthis “criticalregionalist”approachtocontemporaryarchitecture,as a reactionto Postmodernism and its critiques of Modernism.264
182. TheIann/Stolz Residence(44 ReedStreet, 1999) by Kuth/Ranieri Architectsisan exampleof New Modernistresidentialarchitecturethat incorporatesregionalcontextthrough its woodmaterialandabstractedbay window.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
183.BarnesResidence(1401ShotwellStreet,1999-2001) by Stanley Saitowitz isan exampleof NewModernistresidentialarchitecturethat hassubtleregionalinfluences,includingthewoodsidingandcurvedbay window.SteelI-beamsareexposedattheexterior,articulating thefloor platesandinterior spaces,andattheinterior exposedmetaltrussesat theroof arecontrastedwith woodceilings.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
263 Meanwhile, thedevastating OaklandFirestormof 1991 resultedin thedestruction of over 2,800 homes.Amidst theseashesarose manyadventurous experimentations inNewModernist (aswellasPostmodernist) residential architecture by SanFrancisco and Bay Areafirmsthat maynot havemuch built work within theCityof San Francisco. Theconfusingly titled San Francisco Houses: After the Fire (London:Ellipsis, 1997) byPeterLloyd documents this architectural phenomenon.
264 KennethFrampton, “TowardsaCritical Regionalism: Sixpoints foranarchitecture of resistance,” in The Anti-Aesthetic. Essays on Postmodern Culture, ed. Hal Foster(Seattle:BayPress,1983).
Fig.
Fig.
New Modernismalsobecame closelyassociated withcivicand culturalinstitutionalbuildings,especiallyas the trend ofbringing in big-namestarchitects andfirms todesignkeybuildingswas taking hold.Yerba Buena Center, inparticular, exemplifies this trend and represents a concentrationof New Modernistmuseums,theaters, convention center,hotel,andretailbuildings mostof whichwere designed byinternationallyknownarchitects; these include the Yerba Buena Centerforthe Arts (701 MissionStreet,1993,FumihikoMaki),Blue Shield of California TheateratYBCA(700HowardStreet,1993,James StewartPolshek&Partners),Metreon(135 4th Street, 1999,GaryE.Handel&Associates)(Fig.184) 265 ReferalsototheChangeswithin ProfessionalPractice and The PublicRealm:CulturalInstitutions,Waterfront,POPOS&Public Art sub-sections of the HistoricContextchapter of this document.
Fig. 184. TheBlueShield of California Theater (700 HowardStreet,1993) was designedby James StewartPolshek&Partners (nowknown asEnnead). Thetheater exemplifies NewModernistdesign in itsuseof modern materials,pure geometries,and a minimalistaesthetic.266 Thetheater isoneof severalNewModernist culturalbuildingsin Yerba Buena Center.
(Source:Ennead.)
Inadditiontolive/work adaptivereuseprojectslike OrientalWarehouseLofts (650 DelanceyStreet,1997,FisherFriedmanAssociates),New Modernismhas beenused forotheradaptive reuse projects and additions (Fig. 59) Bythe 1990s,mostlots inSanFranciscowere builtoutand cityregulations around historicpreservationmeant thatincreasinglyarchitects were finding creative ways toworkwithinthe existing built environment,suchas the GreenGlenindustrial tooffice conversion(500TreatAvenue, 1999,PeterPfauArchitects)and the conversionof a formerSOM-designed1951GreyhoundBusmaintenance facility byTannerLeddyMaytumStacyforthe new CCA
265 OtherNewModernist projects built in theearly twenty-firstcentury in YerbaBuenaCenterinclude theFour SeasonsHotel (2001,GaryHandel, 757 MarketStreet),Museumof theAfrican Diaspora (2005,685 MissionStreet,The FreelonGroup), Contemporary JewishMuseum (736 MissionStreet, 2008,DanielLibeskind), and SPUR Urban Center(2009,654 MissionStreet,Pfau LongArchitecture). Formore information on theYerba BuenaCenter redevelopment area,refertothe San Francisco Redevelopment Historic Context Statement (inprogress)
266 Awardsincluded: Award of Honor forDesign Excellence, AIA/San Francisco, 1995;AIANational Honor Award forArchitecture, 1994;AIANational Honor AwardforInteriors, 1994;Award,AIA/New York Chapter,1994;USITT Architecture Award,United StatesInstituteof TheatreTechnology, 1994;Rudy Bruner Gold MedalforUrban Excellence, Institute forUrban Design, 1999;AwardforExcellencein Design, AIA/NewYork State, 1994;Awardfor Excellence in Design,AIA/New York State,1994.Referto:“TheBlueShield of California TheateratYBCA,” Ennead, accessed online January20,2024, https://www.ennead.com/work/yerba
SanFranciscocampus in1998 (1111 8th Street) (Fig. 185, Fig. 8,and Fig. 9) 267 The CCAcampus inPotreroHill continued togrow inthe twenty-firstcenturyand features a clusterof New Modernistbuildings designed by notable localarchitects.
Fig.185.PeterPfauArchitectsdesigned an adaptivereuse of an existing 1947industrialbuilding at500TreatAvenue forofficeusein 1999.Known asGreen Glen,thebuilding is namedafter theformer linen servicethatoperatedoutof thebuilding.Theintervention contraststhenewapproach to Modernistdesign with an existing,albeitmodest, Modernistindustrialdesign.
(Source: SKS Partners.)
New Modernismlagged inuse fordowntowncorporate office high-rises,whichcanlikelybe explained bya combination of factors including the fact thatthere is a long lead time withdesign,entitlements,and construction of suchlarge projects,as wellas a more conservative attitude of realestate developers whoare oftenmore comfortable following a provenpaththroughentitlements and designreview.Atransitionaldesign bySOMwas completed in1999 at101 Second Street the building returns tothe glass and steelcurtainwallof Miesiancorporate Modernism,butstillfeatures a white stone paneling atthe base and a portionof the tower, whichis a materialmore closelyassociated withPostmoderncorporate designand compliance withthe 1971 UrbanDesignPlanand 1985 DowntownPlan.Likewise,the FourSeasons Hotel(757 MarketStreet, 2001,Gary Edward Handel&Associates)has a more contextualbase designbuta New Modernistglass and steeltower. By the late2000s,New Modernistblue and green-tone glass skintowers replaced the contextualand pointy-hatted Postmodern corporate office towers as downtownconstructionshifted southof MarketStreettothe Transbay area.
267 LisaFindley, “Punching the Clock:PeterPfau, AIA,” arcCA 00.1 (2000),accessedonline,February 13,2024,https://arccadigest.org/punching-clock-peterpfau-aia/.)
New ModernismEvaluation Criteria
Statementof Significance:
Periodof Significance:
Justificationof Periodof Significance:
NewModernistarchitecturedevelopedinresponsetoPostmodernism, which by the1980swas fallingoutof favor asitwasperceivedas superficial, tired,andpastiche.TheNewModernists hadaninterestin returningtosomeoftheprinciplesofModernism includingdesignbasedon program andfunction,theuseof high-tech andmodern materials,anda lackof applied ornamentation whilestillcarryingforwardsomeofthehumaneurbanismthatwaslearnedin reactiontoearly andmid-twentieth century Modernism.NewModernistarchitectureincludes modesthatrangefrom the‘industrialchic’of 1990slive/workloftsto pure,minimalism characterizedbysimplegeometricformsandsimplifiedmaterialpalettesof metal,glass,and concrete.Regionalandcontextualcharacteristics,such asbay windowsandwoodcladding, canbefoundinNewModernistresidentialarchitecture.TheshiftawayfromPostmodernismto NewModernism in San Francisco wassignaledwith early projectssuch astheDataMart(999 BrannanSt,1986)byTanner& VanDine,andpublicly with the1991SFMOMA exhibition “In the Spiritof Modernism.”
Significantexamplesof NewModernistarchitecturetypically display a fullexpression of the style,drawing from thecharacter-defining featuresoutlinedbelow. Notableexamplesof New Modernistarchitecturebuiltbefore2000includeculturalandeducationalinstitutions, live/worklofts,andother residentialbuildings.Significantexamplesof NewModernist architecture,especiallyasperiodofsignificancebeginslessthan45yearsago,willbeby locally or nationally notablearchitectsor firms,andhavedemonstratedsignificancethrough publication and/or awards.Due to therelatively recentconstruction of NewModernist buildings,eligibleexamplesareexpectedto havea high degreeof integrity.Examplesof adaptivereuse(including,butnotlimitedto,live/worklofts) may beeligibleasexamplesof NewModernistarchitecture,butin thesecasestheNewModernistadditionsor interventions shouldbevisibleattheexterior (notjustinterior remodels).
Late1980s –2000
Theperiodof significancebeginsin thelate1980s,when a resurgentinterestin thetenetsof ModernismbegantoeclipsetheeraofarchitecturalPostmodernism,andencompassestherise of NewModernism in the1990sbecamea prevalentarchitecturalstyle,particularly for architect-designedbuildings.Asthestylehascontinuedtobeutilizedinto the 2000s,theendof theperiodof significancemay bereevaluatedwith futureresearch andmorescholarly distance.
Geographic Boundaries:
Citywide.ThemajorityofNewModernistcommercial,institutionalandmixed-usebuildingsare locatedin theSouth of Market,Mission Bay,Potrero Hill,andCentralWaterfront neighborhoods.Residentialexamplesarefoundthroughoutthe city butaremostcommon in theeastsideof thecity.
Institutionalbuildings,including culturalinstitutionssuch asmuseums,areamong themost notableexamplesof NewModernism from theperiodbefore2000.Additionally,thestyleis foundin single-family andmulti-family residences,including the live/workloftsthatbecame popularinthe1990s. NewModernismisalsoutilizedineducationaland commercialbuildings, including offices,retail,andmixed-usebuildings,butNewModernistexamplesof these property typesbecomemorecommon after 2000.NewModernism wasnotutilizedin downtown commercial high-risebuildingsuntilthe2000s. Mostknown examplesof New Modernisttransportation, recreationalandreligiousinstitutionsdateto after 2000.
CriterionC/3 Eligibility Standards
Aproperty may be considered aneligible resource underCriterionC/3,if itmeets the following:
• Constructed during the period of significance (late 1980s to2000) and meets relevantcriterion considerations forproperties of the recentpast;referto“RecentPast&Considerations forResources Less than50 Years Old”inthe Introduction of this report
• Significantexamples of New Modernismthatmayqualifyas eligible historicresources,evenas partof the ‘recentpast,’willbe fullexpressions of New Modernismand willhave demonstrated architectural qualityand/orinfluence within the local,regional,ornational architecture ordesignfield.Qualityor significance maybe demonstrated (butis notguaranteed) throughpublicationinarchitecturaljournals of record,designawards, subsequentarchitecturalmonographs orbooks, and/orassociationwithan Architect orBuilderof Merit,ora prominentarchitecturalfirm. Comparative analysis withother contemporaneous examples of New Modernismis importanttounderstanding whethera ‘recentpast’ propertymayrise toa levelof significance foreligibilityunderCriterionC/3.
• Mustretaincharacter-defining features and have highlevels of integrity,particularlyintegrityof design, materials,and workmanship.
• Rarityof anextantproperty type inthe New Moderniststyle maybe a considerationindetermining eligibility.
• Properties thatinclude anoriginal,associated publicartworkand/ordesigned landscape,including residentialgardens,corporate plazas,and institutionalgrounds,should be evaluated comprehensively. Inother words,the landscape and/orpublicartshould be evaluated as partof the overalldesignof the propertyand factored intoconsiderations of significance and integrity,and identificationof characterdefining features.
o Insome cases,apublicartwork and/ordesignedlandscape mayalsorise toa levelof individual significance.Referalsotothe evaluative frameworks infollowing historiccontextstatements: Public Art, Monuments & Murals (inprogress)and Landscapes (1848 -1989) (planned).
• Otherconsiderations:
o Properties designed orconstructed byanArchitectorBuilderof Merit,particularlyif the resource is a rare orexceptionalexample of the architectorbuilder’s workinSanFrancisco, should be considered.Refertothe EvaluationFrameworkin Architecture, Planning, & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies forfurtherinformation.
o Examples of adaptive reuse (including live/workunits)mayinclude New Modernistadditions or alterations,whichmaybe considered foreligibilityunderCriterionC/3 as examples of New Modernism.Eligiblepropertieswouldinclude distinctive, fullexamplesofNew Modernistdesign thatare clearlyvisible and expressed atthe exteriororwithinthe publicrealm;inotherwords, aninterior remodelof anexisting building foranadaptive reuse is unlikelytobe eligible under Criterion C/3 forassociationwiththe theme of New Modernism.
▪ Live/workartistloft conversions thatadaptanexisting building withprimarilyinterior alterations are unlikelytobe significantunderCriterionC/3 forassociationwiththe live/workconversion, butmaybe significantunderothercriteria orforother associations suchas withartisticorcounterculture communities ormovements.
o Properties thatinclude designed landscapes thatare directlyassociated withbuildings or building complexes,including residentialgardens,corporate plazas,and institutionalgrounds, should be evaluated comprehensively.Inotherwords,the landscape should be evaluated as partof the overalldesignof the propertyand factored intoconsiderations of significance and integrityand identificationof character-defining features.
o ApropertymayalsoqualifyunderCriterionC/3 as a contributortoa historicdistrictif itis situated withina geographicallycohesive grouping of buildings related bydesignor byan architector developer.Inordertomeetlocal,state,and/ornationalregistrationrequirements as a district,a majorityof contributing properties would need toretainmostof theircharacterdefining features. Generally,contributors toa historicdistrict need notmeetas higha threshold forintegrityas individualbuildings;however,atthis time,a highdegree of integritywould be expected forNew Modernistbuildings as partof aneligible historicdistrict since notmuchtime has passed since theiroriginalconstruction.
▪ Clusters of New Modernistbuildings are located atYerba Buena Centerand the CCA campus inPotreroHill;however,some of the New Modernistbuildings inthese clusters were builtafter2000.These clusters maynot,atthis time,meetthe criteria considerations fordistricts less than50 years old,orwould require furtherresearchto justify the coherence of theirassociationunderCriterion3/Cas eligible groupings.
Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features of New Modernistarchitecture significantunderCriterionC/3 are those elements thatrepresentits significantdesignqualities relative toits date of construction. While New Modernist architecture has a particularapproachtoformand materials,itis nota strict“style”like more traditionalstyles or period revivals thathave anidentifiable setof commonfeatures and materials thatwere codified through architectural educationand training,patternbooks,and catalogs.As such,a listof characteristicfeatures associated withNew Modernismshould notbe understood ortreated as finite.268 The following are features whichcanbe characteristicof significantNew Modernistarchitecture:
• Boxymassing is typical.
268 Thesameis trueforother LateModernistand Postmodernist styles which haveawide, andsometimes divergent, rangeof expressions especially across property types.
• Flatroofs withnooverhang are mostcommon
• Large,gridded glass walls are typicalininstitutionaland commercialproperties.
• Metaland othersyntheticpanels are commoninindustrialand commercialproperties,typicallycreating a flatand/orgridded visualcharacter.The grid of panelcladding is typicallyexpressed throughreveals (ratherthanprojecting mullions).
Downtowncorporate properties and culturalinstitutions mayhave associated designed landscapes, plazas,orroof gardens.
Bythe early2000s,New Modernismhad replaced Postmodernismas the predominantarchitecturalstyle in downtowncorporate high-rise construction. Corporate New Modernismis characterized bythe extensive use of glass curtainwalls. Indistinction withLate Modernand PostmodernArchitecture,corporate New Modernoffice towers typicallyutilize more opaque glass thatmaybe blue orgreeninhue,as opposed todarker,opaque,or mirrored glass. Furtherresearchand documentationof New Modernisminthe 2000s willbe required inthe future.
Integrity Considerations
Apropertyeligible underCriterionC/3 should retainthe majorityof its aspects of integritydating tothe period whenthe significantdesignwas completed,withanemphasis of integrityof design,materials,and workmanship. The building’s significantdesignqualities should remainreadilyapparent,and the majorityof original features and materials thatconveythe significantdesignshould remainextant. Due tothe factthatNew Modernistproperties are stillconsidered partof the “recentpast”and relativelylittle time has passed since their construction, properties eligible underCriterionC/3 are expected toretaina highdegree of integrityof design and materials. Still,minorchanges suchas installationof securitygates inresidentialproperties,orreplacement garage doors orin-kind window replacements are unlikelytoaffectoverallintegrity,unless otherminorchanges accumulate toresultina loss of integrityof designormaterials. Integrityof locationis expected forindividually eligible New Modernistproperties Inanurbanenvironmentsuchas SanFrancisco,itis expected thatthe broad setting and nearbyproperties willchange overtime;changes tothe area surrounding a propertyare generally unlikely tobe a factorinevaluating late twentiethcenturyproperties underCriterionC/3.
Fig.186.TheCorson-HeiserLive/WorkBuilding (25ZoeStreet,1992) by Tanner Leddy Maytum Stacy isa distinctiveexampleof a New Modernistlive/workloft.Thestyleisclosely associatedwith live/workloftswhich became popular in theearly 1990swhen San Francisco passedan ordinancethatincentivizedtheir construction in SoMa,theMission,andPotrero Hill,aroundthesametimethatNewModernism waseclipsing Postmodernism in popularity. Althoughthefirmhasnotyetbeen identifiedor evaluatedasan architecturalfirm of merit,the firm won theAIA ArchitectureFirm awardin 2017andhasproduceda notablebody of work 269 Thefirm wasfeaturedin the1991“In theSpiritof Modernism” exhibitatSFMOMA, andhelpeddefinetheNewModernist architecturallocally.TheCorson-Heiser Live/WorkBuilding wasawardedasa 1992 RecordHouseby Architectural Record andhas been widely publishedsince.Thebuilding has characteristic featuresof NewModernism including simplegeometric massing and industrialmaterials,andisuniquely expressive of itsfunction asa live-workspacewith the division of spaceclearly articulatedby the exterior griddedwindows.(Refer to historic photos:Fig. 58).Thebuilding appears unalteredattheexterior.Asa particularly distinctiveexampleof a NewModernist live/workbuilding,itappearsto beeligibleasa historic resourceunder California Register Criterion3.Thefirm isa highly recognizedfirm anditislikely thatsomeadditionalresearch may makethecasefor “exceptional significance” under NationalRegister Criterion C.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
(2023) whichhave majoroffices inSan Francisco.
Fig.188.BlueShieldof California Theater atYBCA (700 HowardStreet,1993) by nationally renownedarchitect JamesPolshekisa distinctiveexampleof New Modernistarchitectureusedfor a culturalinstitution. Thetheater ,which won numerousawards, exhibitsa return to Modernistgeometric forms,with a new complexity of massing andrefined,contemporary materials.Thebuildingislikely eligibleunder California RegisterCriterion 3,butmay notmeetthe“exceptional significance” (Criterion G) thresholdunder National Register Criterion C.
(Source: Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 187. 960Natoma Live/Work(1993) by David SternberginSoMa.Thebuilding hassomeof thetypical characteristicsof NewModernism,especially as associatedwith live/worklofts,including boxy massing andindustrialmaterials.However,itisnota particularly distinctiveexampleeither of NewModernism or a liveworkloftsuch thatitwouldmeettheeligibility thresholdsfor significance,especially asa property less than45yearsold.Thebuilding doesnotexhibitthelevel of materialdetailing foundin the Corson-Heiser Live/WorkBuilding,using generic windowandfire escapecomponents,andother propertiesmorefully exhibittheNewModerniststyle.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
Fig. 189. TheMetreon shopping center (Metreon (1354th Street,1999) by Gary E.Handel& Associates,whilean earlyexampleofNewModernistarchitectureappliedto a commercialcomplex of thisscalein San Francisco,does notappear to riseto thelevelindividualeligibility under Criterion C/3,especially asa property lessthan 45years old.Other propertiesin theYerba Buena Center area morefully exhibittheNew Moderniststyle.
(Source:Page& Turnbull.)
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
San
Bibliography
Books & PublishedReports
Ant Farm Inflatocookbook Sausalito,CA:Rip Off Press,1970-71
Arenson,Adam. Banking on Beauty: Millard Sheets and Midcentury Commercial Architecture in California.Austin: Universityof Texas Press,2018
Asensio,Pacoand Ana Cristina G.Cañizares San Francisco Houses Düsseldorf,Germany:TeNeues,2003.
Banham,Reyner. The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? New York:Reinhold,1966.
Blake,Peter. Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn’t Worked.Boston:Little,Brown&Co.1977.
Boericke,Art and BarryShapiro. Handmade Houses: A Guide to the Woodbutcher’s Art.SanFrancisco:Scrimshaw Press,1973.
Borsano,Gabriella,ed. Architecture 1980: The Presence of the Past the Past Venice Biennale. TranslatedbyThomas Becker.New York:Rizzoli,1980.
Boults,Elizabethand Chip Sullivan. Illustrated History of Landscape Design.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons, Inc., 2010.
Brugmann, Bruce B.,GreggarSletteland, eds The Ultimate Highrise SanFrancisco: San Francisco Bay Guardian, 1971.
Burns,Jim. Lawrence Halprin: Changing Places.SanFrancisco:SanFranciscoMuseumof Art,1986.
Institute forArchitecture and UrbanStudies (IAUS)and SanFranciscoArtInstitute (SFAi). California Counterpoint: New West Coast Architecture,18 IAUS New York:RizzoliInternational,1982.
California OfficeofHistoric Preservation. Technical Assistance Series #6 California Register and National Register: A Comparison Sacramento:California Office of State Publishing,2011.
Carlsson,Chris and LisaRuthElliott,eds. Ten Years That Shook the City: San Francisco 1968-1978 SanFrancisco: CityLights FoundationBooks,2011
Corbett,MichaelR.,Charles HallPage &Associates,FoundationforSanFrancisco’s ArchitecturalHeritage. Splendid Survivors. SanFrancisco:California Living Books,1979.
Department of CityPlanning See San Francisco Planning Department
Drexler,Arthur. Transformations in Modern Architecture.New York:Museumof ModernArt,distributed byNew York GraphicSociety,1979.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
Dunlop Fletcher,Jenniferand JosephBecker. The Sea Ranch: Architecture, Environment, and Idealism.San Francisco:SanFrancisco Museumof ModernArt,2018.
Eckbo,Garrett. Public Landscape: Six Essays on Government and Environmental Design in the San Francisco Bay Area.Berkeley:Institute of Governmental Studies,Universityof California,Berkeley,1978.
Frampton, Kenneth.“Towards a CriticalRegionalism:Six points foranarchitecture of resistance.”In The AntiAesthetic. Essays on Postmodern Culture,edited by HalFoster.Seattle:BayPress,1983
Francisco,Sonnier. Golden Age of School Construction, San Francisco, California Historic Context Statement – Draft. SanFranciscoPlanning Department, Intern Draft2009.
Gebhard,David and SusanKing,eds. A View of California Architecture: 1960-1976.SanFrancisco:SanFrancisco Museumof ModernArt,1976.
Goldberger,Paul. On The Rise: Architecture and Design in A Postmodern Age NewYork:The NewYorkTimes Books Co.,Inc.,1983.
Halprin,Lawrence,andJimBurns. Taking Part: A Workshop Approach to Collective Creativity.Cambridge,MA:The MITPress,1975
Hartman,Chester. City for Sale: The Transformation of San Francisco.Berkeley:Universityof California Press,2002.
Hess,Alan. Hyperwest: American Residential Architecture on the Edge.New York:WhitneyLibraryof Design,1996.
Holl,Stevenand WilliamStout Pamphlet Architecture 1-10 New York:PrincetonArchitecturalPress,1998.
Horton, Inge Schaefer. Early Women Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area: The Lives and Work of Fifty Professionals, 1890-1951. Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland &Co,2010.
Isenberg,Alison. Designing San Francisco: Art, Land, and Urban Renewal in the City by the Bay.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress,2017.
Jacobs,AllanB. Making City Planning Work.Chicago:AmericanPlanning Association,1980.
Jacobs,Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.New York:RandomHouse, 1961
The Language of Post-Modern Architecture.New York:Rizzoli,1977,1978,1981,1984,1987,1991,2002.
The New Moderns: From Late- to Neo-Modernism.New York:Rizzoli,1990.
. The New Paradigm in Architecture: The Language of Post-Modernism.New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 2002.
Johnson, Philip and MarkWigley. Deconstructivist Architecture New York:The Museumof ModernArt,New York, 1988.
Hitchcock,HenryRusselland Philip Johnson. The International Style.New York:W.W.Norton,1932
Klotz,Heinrich. The History of Postmodern Architecture.Cambridge,MA:The MITPress,1988.
Le Corbusier. The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1929.
Towards A New Architecture.New York:Payson&Clarke,1927.
Lloyd,Peter. San Francisco: A Guide to Recent Architecture.London:Ellipsis,1997.
San Francisco Houses: After the Fire.London:Ellipsis, 1997.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
Lowell,Waverly,ElizabethByrne,and BetsyFrederick-Rothwell,eds. Design on the Edge: A Century of Teaching Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, 1903-2003.Berkeley:College of Environmental Design,Universityof California,Berkeley,2009.
Lowell,Waverly,Carrie LeahMcDade,and ElizabethDouthittByrne,eds. Landscape at Berkeley: The First 100 Years.Berkeley:College of EnvironmentalDesign,Universityof California,Berkeley,2013.
Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1960.
Mason,Melodyand Michelle Galindo. San Francisco: architecture & design.Düsseldorf,Germany:TeNeues,2005.
MIG. San Francisco Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Inventory.Prepared forSanFranciscoPlanning Department,adopted September2015.Accessed online February13,2024, https://default.sfplanning.org/Preservation/cultural_landscape/CivicCenterCLI_FinalReport.pdf
Moore,Charles,Gerald Allen,DonlynLyndon, The Place of Houses.New York:Holt,Reinhartand Winston,1974.
Moudon,Anne Vernez. Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco.Cambridge:The MITPress, 1986.
NationalParkService National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.Washington,D.C.:NationalParkService,1995.
Page &Turnbull 1351 42nd Avenue – Francis Scott Key Annex Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1.Prepared forSan FranciscoPlanning Department,October8,2019.
Embarcadero Center Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1.Submitted toSanFranciscoPlanning Department,August 10,2022.
. Transamerica Pyramid Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1.Submitted toSanFranciscoPlanning Department,November16,2021.
San Francisco Redevelopment Public Artwork Inventory Findings Report.Prepared forSanFranciscoArts Commission,January2024.
PioneerWollenMills and D.GhirardelliCompany,NationalRegisterNomination No. 82002249,April29,1982.
Polledri,Paolo, ed. Visionary San Francisco. SanFrancisco:SanFranciscoMuseumof Art,1990.
Robinson &Associates Growth, Efficiency and Modernism: GSA Buildings of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s Washington, D.C.:U.S.GeneralServices Administration,Office of the Chief Architect,CenterforHistoricBuildings, 2005.
Rossi,Aldo. The Architecture of the City.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1982,Englishtranslation.
Rowe,Colinand Fred Koetter. Collage City.Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1978.
SanFranciscoDepartment of CityPlanning See San Francisco Planning Department.
SanFranciscoPlanning Department. African American Citywide Historic Context Statement. Adopted February 21, 2024. Accessed online April18,2024, https://sfplanning.org/project/citywide-historic-contextstatement#completed
Architecture, Planning, & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies HistoricContext Statement.Adopted October2023.Accessed online February13,2024, https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-and-preservation-professionals-collectionbiographies#info
Better Market Street Project EIR, Appendix 6: Cultural Resources Supporting Information,Case No. 2014.0012E,StateClearinghouseNo.2015012027,DEIRFebruary27,2019.Accessed online February13, 2024,https://sfmea.sfplanning.org/Appendix%206%20%20Cultural%20Resources%20Supporting%20Material.pdf
Downtown Plan: Proposal for Adoption by the City Planning Commission as a Part of the Master Plan City and Countyof SanFrancisco,October1984.Accessed online February13,2024, https://archive.org/details/downtownproposal1984sanf/.
. Guiding Downtown Development.Cityand Countyof SanFrancisco, July 1982.Accessed online February 13,2024, https://archive.org/details/guidingdowntownd1982sanf/mode/2up
San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970 HistoricContext Statement. Adopted 2011 Accessed online February13,2024, https://sfplanninggis.org/docs/Historical_Context_Statements/Modern%20Architecture%20Context%20 adopted%20Jan%202011.pdf
. “SanFranciscoPreservationBulletinNo.14:Brief Historyof the HistoricPreservationMovementinthe United States and inSanFrancisco.”2003,reprinted 2011.Accessed online February13,2024, https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/preserv/bulletins/HistPres_Bulletin_14.PDF
The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan of San Francisco SanFrancisco:Cityand Countyof SanFrancisco,May1971.Accessed online February13,2024, https://archive.org/details/urbandesignplanf1971sanf/
SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency. Art in San Francisco Redevelopment Areas.SanFranciscoRedevelopment Agency,1979.Accessed online February13,2024, https://archive.org/details/artinsanfrancisc1979sanf Schmidt-Brumer,Horst and Feelie Lee. Die bemalte Stadt.Koln,Germany:DuMont-Schauber,1973. Schwarzer,Mitchell. Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Area: A History & Guide.SanFrancisco:WilliamStout Publishers,2006.
SunsetMagazine. Sunset Homeowner’s Guide to Solar Heating & Cooling.MenloPark,CA:Lane Publishing Co., 1978,1980.
Temko,Allan. No Way to Build a Ballpark: And Other Irreverent Essays on Architecture.SanFrancisco,Chronicle Books,1993.
Torre, Susana,ed Women in American Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective.New York:Whitney Libraryof Design,1977.
Treib,Marc,ed. Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review.Cambridge,MA:The MITPress,1994.
Treib,Marc,and David Gebhard,eds. An Everyday Modernism: The Houses of William Wurster.SanFrancisco Museumof ModernArtand Universityof California Press,1995.
Try Us: 1975 National Minority Business Directory United States:U.S.Departmentof Labor,Manpower Administration, 1975 Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Try_Us/N-rnhFdSVQ0C?hl=en&gbpv=1.
Tsujimoto,Karenand Melinda Wortz. David Ireland: A Decade Documented, 1978-1988. Santa Cruz:Universityof California,1988.
Venturi,Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture.New York:The Museumof ModernArt,New York, 1966.
Venturi,Robert,Denise ScottBrown,and StevenIzenour. Learning From Las Vegas.Cambridge,MA:MITPress, 1972.
Viladas,Pilar The Interiors Book of Shops & Restaurants New York:WhitneyLibraryof Design,1981
Walker,Peterand Melanie Simo. Invisible Gardens: The Search for Modernism in the American Landscape. Cambridge,MA:The MITPress,1996
Wolfe,Tom. From Bauhaus to Our House.New York:FarrarStraus Giroux,1981.
Woodbridge, Sally.Ed. Bay Area Houses.SaltLake City:Gibbs M.Smith,1988.
Woodbridge,SallyB.,JohnM.Woodbridge,and ChuckByrne. San Francisco Architecture: An Illustrated Guide to the Outstanding Buildings, Public Artworks, and Parks in the Bay Area of California.Revised Edition. Berkeley:TenSpeed Press,2005.
“FamedOakland architectHoraceGilford diesat68.” East Bay Times,January11,2007.AccessedonlineFebruary 13,2024, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2007/01/11/famed-oakland-architect-horace-gilford-dies-at68/
Farrelly,E.M.“The New Spirit.” Architectural Record (August1986).Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/the-new-spirit-by-e-m-farrelly.
Findley,Lisa.“Punching the Clock:PeterPfau,AIA,” arcCA 00.1 (2000).Accessed online,February13,2024, https://arccadigest.org/punching-clock-peter-pfau-aia/ Frampton, Kenneth.“The Need forRoots:Venice 1980.” GA Document (Winter1981).
“From the folks whogave you20-20 vision.” Progressive Architecture (September1975):64-67.
“Garfield ElementarySchool,SanFrancisco.” Architecture California (July/August1982):20-21.
“GhirardelliSquare.” Architectural Forum (June 1965):52-57.
Glionna, John M.“Locals face off overBayArea’s statues’meaning” Los Angeles Times,January4,2007.
Goldberger,Paul. “ACliché Comes Home ToRoost.” The New York Times,April2,1979.
“SanFranciscans GetThree New Buildings.” The New York Times,November15,1983.
“Strolling Along a Post-Modern ‘Street’fromVenice” The New York Times,June 20,1982.
. “The Transamerica Building:WhatWas Allthe Fuss About?” The New York Times,March2,1977.
Graves,Michael.“Architecture and the LostArt of Drawing.” The New York Times,September1,2012.
Heller,Jeffrey.“MainConcerns,”Letters, San Francisco Examiner,April21,1996
Hester,Jr.,RandolphT.“Process CAN Be Style:participationand ConservationinLandscape Architecture.” Landscape Architecture Magazine (May/June 1983): 49-55.
“Honor Awards,1988.” Architecture California 10,no.5 (May/June 1988).
Horn, Stanford M.“NorecessioninS.F.downtownbuilding” San Francisco Examiner,June 22,1980.
“Industrial Arts,”Record Houses Architectural Record (April1992):125-31
Jameson,Frederic.“Postmodernism, orthe Cultural Logicof Late Capitalism.” New Left Review 146 (July/August 1984).Accessed online February13,2024, https://newleftreview.org/issues/i146/articles/fredricjameson-postmodernism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-late-capitalism
Jencks,Charles.“Battle of the Labels:Late-ModernvPostmodern.” A.D. News- Architectural Design News Supplement (July1981): 8-9.
. “The Rise of Post-ModernArchitecture,” Architectural Association Quarterly 7,no.4 (October/December 1975):3-14.
King,John. “38 years later,high-rise haterstillstanding tall.” San Francisco Chronicle,July14,2009.
. “Here’s anotherpartof Feinstein’s S.F.legacy:She shaped how ourcitylooks.” San Francisco Chronicle, September29,2023.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/feinstein-shaped-s-f-18396941.php
Lomax,Almena.“BlackCrusade Here ToAid GhettoYouth.” San Francisco Examiner,April1,1971.
McCloud,John. “Live-WorkLaw forArtists Roils SanFranciscans,” The New York Times,April27,1997.
Mumford,Lewis.“The Case Against ‘ModernArchitecture.’”ArchitecturalRecord (April1962): 155-162
“Nine family-size apartments getbuilt-inprivacyona tighturbansite” House & Home 41,no.3 (March1972):40
Polledri,Paolo. “Inthe Spiritof Modernism.” San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Architecture Design Journal 1, no.3 (November1991).
Temko,Allan. “A27-StoryCollectionof Architectural Errors” San Francisco Chronicle,February15,1988.
. “Bold State Offices toSave Energy.” San Francisco Chronicle,October10,1977.
. “California’s New Generationof EnergyEfficientState Buildings,” AIA Journal (December1977):50-56.
“GreatThing Comes inSo-SoPackage.” San Francisco Examiner,April7,1996.
. “SanFrancisco’s Changing Cityscape” Architectural Forum (April1960).
. “The MarriottDebate:AHotelArchitects Detestand People Are CrazyAbout.” San Francisco Chronicle, February26,1990
“The Port’s Architectural Fiasco– Pier39.” San Francisco Chronicle,October30,1978.
“Well-Tailored PlanFromLeviStrauss” San Francisco Chronicle,November14,1978.
Virginia Tech,SpecialCollections and UniversityArchives:
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
Horton, Inge S.Architectural Collection, Ms-1990-065,SpecialCollections and UniversityArchives, Virginia Tech,finding aid accessed online February13,2024, https://aspace.lib.vt.edu/repositories/2/resources/1798
Adobe Creative Cloud.“Visions NotPreviouslySeen:The Groundbreaking Workof Barbara Stauffacher Solomon,” article and video,March28,2018.Accessed online February13,2024, https://creativecloud.adobe.com/discover/article/visions-not-previously-seen-the-groundbreakingdesign-work-of-barbara-stauffacher-solomon
Alexandra,Rae.“The 1960s WomenWhose EnvironmentalActivismSaved the Bay,”KQED,April22,2022. Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.kqed.org/arts/13911567/the-1960s-women-whoseenvironmental-activism-saved-the-bay
Associationof Collegiate Schols of Architecture (ACSA).“Equity,Diversity,and Inclusion.”ACSA.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/equity-diversity-and-inclusion/
Architizer.“The Software ThatChangedArchitecture: Reflectingon 40Years of AutoCAD.”c.2022.Accessed online February13,2024, https://architizer.com/blog/practice/tools/autocad-40th-birthday/
Arenson,Adam.“Definitive ListforHome Savings and LoanArtwork,Savings of America Artwork,and the Millard Sheets StudioPublicProjects,”updated August2018.Accessed online February13,2024, https://adamarenson.com/books/banking-on-beauty-millard-sheets-and-midcentury-commercialarchitecture-in-california/definitive-list-for-home-savings-and-loan-artwork-savings-of-america-artworkand-the-millard-sheets-studio-public-projects-2-3/
Cadwalladr,Carole.“StewartBrand’s Whole EarthCatalog,the bookthatchanged the world.” The Guardian,May 4,2013.AccessedonlineFebruary13,2024,https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/05/stewartbrand-whole-earth-catalog
California College of the Arts (CCA).“About.”Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.cca.edu/about/#section-history
Capp StreetProjectArchive (CSPA).“AboutCSP.”Archived fromthe originalonSeptember21,2017 via the WaybackMachine.Accessed February13,2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20170921095256/http://libraries-archive.cca.edu/capp/aboutcsp.html
Chou,Flora,Page&Turnbull. “The ‘70sTurn50:Building the Context.”Docomomo US,August 13,2020.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.docomomo-us.org/news/the-70s-turn-50-building-the-context
David BakerArchitects.“18th&Arkansas/g2 Lofts.”Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.dbarchitect.com/projects/18th-arkansasg2-lofts
DigitalSchool. “The Evolution of CADforEngineering and ArchitecturalTechnicians.” Accessed online February 13,2024, https://www.digitalschool.ca/the-evolution-of-cad-for-engineering-and-architecturaltechnicians/.
Docomomo US/NorthernCalifornia “Mapping the ‘70s Turn50.”Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.docomomo-noca.org/70s-turn-50-noca-map
Ennead.“The Blue Shield of California TheateratYBCA.”Accessed online January20,2024, https://www.ennead.com/work/yerba
Karlin,Sean.“Manwaring Letters Erased,ButNotForgotten,”The PotreroView,January2021.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.potreroview.net/manwaring-letters-erased-but-not-forgotten/ King,John. “Brutalismlooks betterwithage.” San Francisco Chronicle,March3,2013
“Fallinto Gap of mediocrity/Chainheadquarters'new Embarcaderobuilding disappoints.”SFGate, June 11,2001.AccessedonlineFebruary13,2024,https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/fall-into-gap-ofmediocrity-chain-headquarters-3314988.php
. “Hills Plaza is contextualismatits best,”SFGate,April2,2011.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/hills-plaza-is-contextualism-at-its-best-2376212.php
LaBounty,Woody.“Heritage50:SplendidSurvivors,PartII,”SFHeritage,April11,2021.Accessed online February 13,2024,https://www.sfheritage.org/news/heritage-50-splendid-survivors-part-ii/#2
Laurie,Michael.“The California Garden:NoPlace ToGo?” Landscape Architecture Magazine 56,no.1 (October 1965):23-27.
Lott,Taryn “ARCHArtSuppliesmoves toBlattnerHall”CCANewsroom,July27,2021.Accessed online February 13,2024,https://www.cca.edu/newsroom/arch-art-supplies-blattner-hall/
SanFranciscoArts Commission “PermanentPublicArt.”Accessed online June 28,2022, https://www.sfartscommission.org/our-role-impact/programs/public-art.
SanFranciscoBoard of Supervisors.“IndustrialProtectionZones,Live/WorkProjects and CommunityPlans.”c. 2002.Accessed online February13,2024, https://sfbos.org/industrial-protection-zones-liveworkprojects-and-community-plans
Simonson, Hannah,Page &Turnbull. “The ‘70s Turn50:Divergences inAmericanArchitecture”DocomomoUS, August 17,2020.AccessedonlineFebruary13,2024,https://www.docomomo-us.org/news/the-70s-turn50-divergences-in-american-architecture
“Secrets of SanFrancisco:Aguide toSanFrancisco’s privately-owned publicopenspaces.”October 2013.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2013-10/poposguide.pdf.
Taylor-Hochberg,Amelia.“Inside Pamphlet: How one of the mostenduring experimentalarchitecture publications gotits start,”Archinect,February12,2016.Accessed online February13,2024, https://archinect.com/features/article/147814975/inside-pamphlet-how-one-of-the-most-enduringexperimental-architecture-publications-got-its-start
The CulturalLandscape Foundation.“MaiK.Arbegast.”Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.tclf.org/pioneer/mai-k-arbegast
“The Pruitt-Igoe Myt.”Accessed online February13,2024, http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/
Universityof California,Berkeley,College of EnvironmentalDesign.“AboutCED.”Accessed online February13, 2024,https://ced.berkeley.edu/about-ced.
“Journey To The Sea Ranch”accessed online February13,2024, https://searanch.ced.berkeley.edu/s/sea-ranch/page/Intro
VanderRyn,Sim.“The Architecture of SimVanderRyn.”Accessed online February13,2024, https://simvanderryn.com/sim-architect
Varnelis,Kazys “Embracing Late Modern,”L.A.Forum.Accessed February13,2024, http://laforum.org/article/embracing-late-modern/
Weinstein,Dave.“NoSecond Fiddle:Eshericksidekickis a force of his owninarchitecture’s Third BayTradition.” SFGate,December4,2004.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/No-second-fiddle-Esherick-sidekick-is-a-force2631892.php
Whitson,Helene.“Strike!...Concerning the 1968-69 Strike atSanFranciscoState College.”FoundSF.Accessed online February13,2024,https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=STRIKE!..._Concerning_the_196869_Strike_at_San_Francisco_State_College
Wiener,Anna.“The Complicated Legacyof StewartBrand’s “Whole EarthCatalog.”” The New Yorker,November 16,2018.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-siliconvalley/the-complicated-legacy-of-stewart-brands-whole-earth-catalog.
Wills,Eric.“PaulGoldbergeronWhatMakes a Good Ballpark.”Architect,October15,2019.Accessed online February13,2024, https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/paul-goldberger-on-what-makes-agood-ballpark_o
Wilson,Yumi.“FuneralParlor Loses PreservationVote /Daphne was workof EichlerArchitect,”SFGate,August7, 1999.Accessed online February13,2024,https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Funeral-Parlor-LosesPreservation-Vote-Daphne-2916240.php
Appendix
AppendixA: Architects &Designers Identified in Research
The following lists includes notable architects,landscape architects,and designers identified during the course of researchforthis historiccontext statementwhose workis connected tothe themes of Modernistand Postmodern architecture and landscape inSanFranciscoduring the period from1960 to2000.These professionalsappearworthyof inclusion inthe Architecture, Planning & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies (Biographies HCS)historiccontextstatement being developed bythe SanFranciscoPlanning Department,and are notamong those whohave alreadybeenincluded in the document. Inclusiononthis listis not adeterminationregarding whethera practitionerrises tothe levelof Architectof Merit;sucha determination would be made inthe Biographies HCS
Architects & Engineers
• Backen,Arrigoni &Ross (BAR)
• Baker,David 270
• Batey&Mack(AndrewBateyand MarkMack)
• Becket,Welton
• Burger&Coplans
• Corlett&Spackman
• Eichler,Joseph 271
• Fougeron,Anne
• Geering,Robert(Fisher-Friedman Associates)
• Gensler,Arthur 272
• Goldstein, Marc(SOM)
• Heller,Jeffrey(HellerManus Architects)
• HOK (GyoObata and BillValentine)
• HoltHinshaw PfauJones
• Hood,Bobbie Sue (Hood MillerAssociates)
270 Although David Bakerisincluded inthe Biographies HCS , theproject list could be morefully developed.
271 Although forarchitects who frequently workedwith JosephEichler and hiscompany Eichler Homes(including ClaudeOakland, Frederick Earl Emmons, A. QuincyJones,Anshen, & Allen, William “Steve” Allen, and Robert “Bob” Anshen) areincluded in the Biographies HCS ,givenEichler’sextensiveinfluenceonBayArea homebuilding, involvement in fair housing, and number of built projects in SanFrancisco, afocused context iswarranted.
272 Project listcould beexpanded asGensler workedon numerous local projects.
• Levy,Toby(LevyArt+ Architecture)
• Lin,T.Y.(structural engineer)
• Lumsden,Anthony (DMJM)
• Jennings,Jim
• Johnson, Philip
• Kaplan/McLauglin/Diaz
• Keatinge-Clay,Paffard
• Kotas,Jermey(Kotas/Pantaleoni)
• MacDonald,Donald 273
• Maule,Tallie
• Podesto,William
• Roake,StephenAllen 274
• Shay,James
• Sheets,Millard
• Simon Martin-Vegue WinkelsteinMorris (SMWM)275
273 Project listand bio should beexpanded toalso include early work on affordableand multi-family, which includes many notable local examples of thePostmodern stylein residential architecture.
274 Roakeisincluded inthe Biographies HCS ,buttheprojectlistcouldbe morefully developed. Anumber of projects arelisted in AnneVernez Moudon, Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco (1986).
275 CathySimon is included in the Biographies HCS ,butabiographyof thefirmand other principals has notyetbeen prepared.
CitywideHistoricContextStatement San
• Solomon, Daniel
• SOM 276
• Stout,William 277
• Taggart,Paulett
• TannerLeddyMaytumStacy 278
• VanBourg/Nakamura
Landscape Architects & Other Designers
• Abergast,Mai
• Asawa,Ruth
• Galli,Tom
• Guzzardo,Anthony 279
• Halprin,Lawrence 280
• Hargreaves Associates
• Larsen,Marget
• Manwaring,Michael
• Painter,Michael
• Royston, Robert/RHAA 281
• StauffacherSolomon, Barbara “Bobbie” 282
• Walker,Peter
276 Biography and project list should beexpanded to endof the twentieth century.SOMwasoneof the mostprolific architects of downtown high-rise buildings inSan Francisco during theperiod from1960-2000.
277 William Stout workedasanarchitect intheSan Francisco BayArea and, whilethere arerelatively fewbuilt worksbyStout compared to somearchitects onthis list, his contributions tothe architectural profession during thisperiod and beyond arenotable, Including in theformof William Stout Architectural Books, abookstore inNorth Beach,Wiliam Stout Publishers, and Pamphlet Architecture.
279 Notethat Guzzardo designed theTransamerica Pyramid Redwood Park,not TomGalli asiscurrently indicated in the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement.RefertoPage& Turnbull, Transamerica Pyramid Historic Resource Evaluation Part 1 (November 16,2021).
280 Halprin’s project listshould be expanded into later20th century, including important projects such asLevi’sPlaza.Also, note thatthe Embarcadero Centerlandscape was not designed by Halprin; only Embarcadero Plazawasdesigned by Halprin.
281 RHAA, the legacyfirmof Robert Royston, hascontinued topractice in SanFrancisco. Expansion of the existingbiography forRobert Royston toinclude additional projects and expanding toinclude projects by RHAA in thelater20th century would be beneficial.
Otherinternationally recognized architects, landscape architects,and designers discussed withinthis reportwere notbased inSanFrancisco and onlybuiltone or a few projects inSanFrancisco. Thus,these practitioners maybe a lowerpriorityfor the developmentof biographies,especiallyas their biographies and projectlists are welldocumented elsewhere.283
Some architects,landscape architects,and designers maybe found towarrantbiographies with additionalresearchorinformation.284
Some architects,landscape architects,and designers begantheircareers during this period,but most of theirnotable projects were builtinthe twenty-first centuryand maywarrantadditional researchinthe future.285
282 Biography and project list should beexpanded. Notable local projects thatWalkerworkedoninclude Maritime Plaza, Buchanan Street Mall, and Sydney Walton Square, amongothers.
283 Theseinclude: Mario Botta,JamesIngo Freed(PeiCobbFreed),M. Paul Friedberg,Romaldo Giurgola, Michael Graves,Herzog & de Meuron, Frank Israel,Ricardo Legorreta,FumihikoMaki,Thom Mayne(Morphosis), CesarPelli, JamesPolshek, Rafael Viñoly Architects, PaulRudolph, Adèle Naudé Santos, and William Turnbull.
284 Thesemay include butare not limited to: AceArchitects, Valentino Agnoli, AntFarm, The Architects Collaborative, Violeta Autumn, Robert Hing Chan,GaryGee,Interim Officeof Architecture (IOOA, with JohnRandolph andBruce Tomb),David Ireland, OlegIvanitsky, IraKurlander, Albert Lanier,JanLubicz-Nycz, GeorgeMatsumoto, McCueBoone Tomsick (Gerald McCue),Robert Mittelstadt, George Omi(OmiLangAssociates),WayneOsaki,HarryLeeOverstreetJohn Pflueger,William Podesto, Praxis (Stephanie Felchand David Ogorzalek),AdèleNaudé Santos (Sandos Prescott & Associates),Sim VanderRyn, Richard Vignolo, and Sandy Walker(Walker& Moody).
285 Theseinclude but arenot limited to:CherylBarton, Mark Cavagnero, Andrea Cochran, Andy Goldsworthy, WalterHood, Mark Horton, Jensen& MacyArchitects, OwenKennerly,Kuth/Ranieri Architects (LizRanieri and ByronKuth), LaurieOlin,CraigSteely,Robert Swatt, and WRNS.
DEMOGRAPHICSHIFTSINLOCALPROFESSIONALPRACTICE
The following discussionof demographicshifts inlocalprofessionalpractice is provided togive contextfor understanding the contributions of architects and designers fromunderrepresented groups,including women, AfricanAmerican,and AsianAmericanarchitects,as wellas toprovide additionalareas of study.Disparities in educationaland professionalopportunities forwomenand individuals fromracialand ethnicminorities should be considered whenevaluating whethera practitionerrises tothe levelof a localArchitectof Merit.Perthe EvaluationCriteria in the Architecture, Planning & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographie s,“A practitioner mayalsorise tothe levelof Architectof Meritfor contributing tothe history of a particularcultural, ethnic,or racialgroup inSanFranciscoor forworking inthe field as a rare memberfromtheircultural,ethnic,or racialgroup.”286
While the architecture andlandscape architecture professions did diversifyoverthe course of the second half of the twentiethcentury,the professions have stillnotcome close toanything like genderparityora reflectionof the racialand ethnicdiversityinthe national,state,orBayArea population.Manymore womenand racialand ethnicminority individuals entered educationalprograms,butthe translationtolicensed professionals and firm leaders was muchlower.287 However,significantsteps were made during laterdecades of the twentiethcentury interms of organizationand awareness,whichwere aided bybroadercivilrights movements inthe 1960s and 1970s,and more localfirms led bywomenand racialand ethnicminorityindividuals were established and practicing inSanFrancisco.
In1974,a “WomeninArchitecture Symposium”was hosted byWashingtonUniversityinSt.Louis toaddress the challenges thatwomenfaced inthe male-dominated professionof architecture.The symposiumreceived national mediaattentionand spurredadditionalevents,discussions,exhibitions,and symposia nationwide.The Brooklyn Museumexhibited “WomeninArchitecture”in1977,whichwas featured in Progressive Architecture (March1977).288 Locally,in1973,a group of BayArea womeninarchitecture incorporated the non-profit Organization of WomenArchitects (OWA)as networking and professionalorganizationthathosted tours, lectures,exhibits,retreats,and otherevents;the organization, whichstillexists today,was renamed Organization of WomenArchitects + DesignProfessionals (OWA+DP)in1978 (Fig. 190).289 The OWAmade theirpresence known atthe 1973 AIAannualconventioninSanFranciscowithaneight-foot-tallphotoof 50 localwomen architects.Inge Horton,OWAmemberand planneratthe SanFranciscoPlanning Department,published a book onearlywomenarchitects inthe BayArea through1951;herarchive,housed atVirginia Tech,alsoincludes
286 “Evaluation Criteria” in SanFrancisco Planning Department, Architecture, Planning & Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographie s (adopted October 2023),6,accessedonline February19,2024, https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-and-preservation-professionals-collectionbiographies#info
287 TheAssociation of CollegiateSchols of Architecture (ACSA) hasseveralcomprehensive national studies about diversity inarchitectural education and professional practice, including about women;African Americans; Latinos; AsianAmerican, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders; Native and Indigenous peoples; andMiddle Easternersand North Africans. Thesestudies can befound on theASCAwebsite: “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion,” ACSA, accessed online February 13,2024, https://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/equity-diversity-and-inclusion/
288 “Womenin Architecture,” Progressive Architecture (March 1977),37-77.Theexhibition, organized by TheArchitectural Leageof NewYork through its Archive of WomeninArchitecture, wascuratedby architect Susana Torre,who alsoedited anaccompanying publication. Referto:“Womenin Architecture,” Progressive Architecture (March 1977),37-77;andSusanaTorre,ed., Women in American Architecture: A Historic and Contemporary Perspective (NewYork: Whitney Libraryof Design,1977).
289 “40th Anniversary 2013:Historyof OWA,” Organization of WomenArchitects + DesignProfessionals, 2013,accessedonline February 13,2024,https://owausa.org/docs/1299-40th%20Anniv%202013-spreads.pdf
researchaboutBayArea womenarchitects whose spanned the late twentiethcenturyand/orintothe twentyfirstcentury.290
Fig. 190. Founding membersof OWA on the rooftopof theSFAIAddition (800ChestnutStreet), 1973.
(Source:OWA+DP.Jeremiah Bragstad, photographer.)
Notable womenwhowere practicing architecture,landscape architecture,and allied designfields inSan Franciscoin the late twentiethcenturyinclude:MaiAbergast,RuthAsawa,Gae Aulenti,Violeta Autumn,Cheryl Barton, Patricia Coplans (Burger&Coplans),LariMaria Diaz (Kaplan,McLauglin,Diaz),Stephanie Felch (Praxis Architecture), Anne Fougeron,BobbieSue Hood (Hood Miller),Lucia Howard (Ace Architects),TobyLevy(LevyArt + Architecture),Marsha Maytum(TannerLeddyMaytumStacy),Liz Raneri(Kuth/Raineri), Adèle Naudé Santos (Sandos Prescott&Associates), CathySimon(SMWM),Barbara StauffacherSolomon,PaulettTaggart,and BeverlyWillis.Among them,BeverlyWillis,FAIA(1928-2023),was one of the pioneering womenarchitects tostart herownfirminSanFrancisco opening a SanFranciscooffice of Willis Atelierin1958,whichshe had originally started inHonolulu in1954;the firmlaterbecame Willis and Associates Architects in1966,thenBeverlyWillis Architect in1991 whenshe moved toNew York.291 Willis served as the firstfemale presidentof the California Council of the AmericanInstitute of Architects in1979,and founded the BeverlyWillis Architecture Foundationin 2002.Hernotable projects inSanFranciscoinclude:early adaptive reuse atUnionStreetStores (1963-5),Vine Terrace Apartments (930 Pine Stret,1973),Digby&EversonCondos (1973),KoretResidence (711 ElCaminodel Mar,1974),MargaretHaywardPlaygroundBuilding (1016 Laguna Street, 1978,notextant),Yerba Buena Gardens RedevelopmentMasterPlan(1980),and SanFranciscoBalletBuilding (455 FranklinStreet, 1984).292
The NationalOrganization of MinorityArchitects (NOMA)was founded in1971 after12 AfricanAmerican architects WilliamBrown,LeroyCampbell,WendellCampbell,JohnS.Chase,James C.Dodd,KennethB. Groggs,NelsonHarris,JehJohnson,E.H.McDowell,RobertJ.Nash,Harold Williams,and RobertWilson metat the annualAIA NationalConvention in Detroitthat year.NOMA,whose missionas currentlystated is "to championdiversitywithinthe designprofessions bypromoting the excellence,communityengagement,and professionaldevelopmentof its members,"has chapters across the country,including manyaffiliated student
290 IngeSchaefer Horton, Early Women Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area: The Lives and Work of Fifty Professionals, 1890 -1951 (Jefferson,N.C.: McFarland & Co,2010);andIngeS.Horton Architectural Collection, Ms-1990-065,SpecialCollections and University Archives, Virginia Tech,finding aid accessed online December 5,2023,https://aspace.lib.vt.edu/repositories/2/resources/1798
291 “BeverlyAnne Willis,” Pioneering Womenof American Architecture, BWAF,accessedonline February13,2024, https://pioneeringwomen.bwaf.org/beverly-ann-willis/
organizations atarchitecture schools.293 Leopold Ray-Lynch,whoworked onnumerous EastBayprojects before joining WLCArchitects,Inc.and is credited withhelping tobuild up the westregionof NOMAintoone of the largestand mostactive inthe organization.294 In1969,AfricanAmericanarchitects FrankClark,Horace Gilford, and GordanJacksonfounded Advocate DesignAssociates inBerkeley,whichwas the first,and atthe time only, AfricanAmerican-owned and runarchitecture firmin the BayArea.295 HarryLee Overstreet(1938-2019),whowas the 14th presidentof NOMA,partnered withHans and TimGersontoformGerson-OverstreetArchitects in1968, and the firmworked onmanyprojects forthe SanFranciscoInternationalAirport (SFO),and onvarious BayArea schools and civicbuildings,including the MartinLuther King Jr.Swimming PoolinSanFrancisco (5701 3rd Street,completed in2001).296 The firmalsoworked onpreservationprojects suchas the reconstructionof the Palaceof FineArts and the rehabilitationof the Bayview Opera House withAfricanAmericanlandscape architect WalterHood.297 While PaulRevere Williams,a Los Angeles-based architectwhodesigned severalhomes inSan Franciscoin the 1930sand1940s,isdiscussedinthe African American Citywide Historic Context Statement (adopted 2024),furtherresearchis required toidentifybuildings designed byAfricanAmericanarchitects inSan Franciscoduring the late twentiethcentury. AfricanAmerican-founded and -led Los Angeles-based firms Kennard &Silvers and Jenkins &Fleming builtprojects inWesternAdditionand Bayview Hunters Point redevelopmentareas,and Norma MerrickSklarek(working forLos Angeles-based VictorGruen&Associates) designed Fox Plaza (1390 MarketStreet,1967).
SanFranciscohas a richhistory of architecture byAsianAmericanarchitects.Inparticular,manyAsianAmerican architects generallyof Japanese orChinese descent were active inthe post-World WarIIperiod,practicing in Modernand Bay Traditionstyles. Some of these practitioners,including architects WorleyWong (Campbell& Wong),RogerLee,MerrillJew,KinjiImada (Claude Oakland &Associates),LunChan(Radar/Chan),and Clement Chen,and landscape architects CaseyKawamoto,Asa Hanamoto(RoystonHanamotoMayes &Beck),and George Omicontinued towork inSanFranciscothrough the 1960s and 1970s.RaiYukioOkamoto(1927-1993) founded his firminSanFranciscoin1960,thenworked forthe SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgencytodevelop a masterplanforJapantown,and served as SanFranciscoPlanning Director from1975 to1980.One of Okamoto’s major contributions tothe city was the designforBuchananPedestrianMall(1976),whichincludes two Origami Fountains (1976;rebuilt1996)byartistRuthAsawa.ManyJapanese Americanarchitects were involved withprojects inthe Japantownportion of the WesternAdditionRedevelopmentArea,working with Modernistand Late Moderniststyles oftenwithsignificantinfluences fromtraditionalJapanese architecture; these include Y.Tajima,Wayne Osaki,VanBourg/Nakamura,Katsura,KarneyInc.,HenryChang,and George Matsumoto.Landscape architectMaiArbegast,whose workinthe BayArea was prolificas she collaborated as horticultural consultantforLawrence Halprin,PeterWalker,SWAGroup,EDAW,and DougalBaylis,is knownto
295 Almena Lomax,“Black CrusadeHereToAid Ghetto Youth,” San Francisco Examiner,April 1,1971;and“FamedOaklandarchitect HoraceGilford diesat 68,” East Bay Times,January11,2007,accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2007/01/11/famed-oakland-architecthorace-gilford-dies-at-68/
296 HarryLeeOverstreet(1938-2019)wasanAfricanAmericanarchitect andpartner atGerson OverstreetArchitects since 1968;thefirmworkedon numerous projects atSFO,aswellasvarious schools andpublic institutions, including the Martin LutherKingJr.Swimming Pool (2001) intheBayview District “Mr.HarryLeeOverstreet– BerkeleyArchitect,Political, Activist,” NOMA, accessed online February13,2024, https://www.noma.net/history/mrharry-lee-overstreet-berkeley-architect-politician-activist/
297 African American landscape architect WalterHood isoneof the mostsignificant living landscape architects in theBayArea. However, hisbuilt projects in SanFrancisco post-datethe period of study forthis report, including: DeYoung MuseumGardens (2005),AbrahamLincoln Brigade (2008) public art installation atEmbarcadero Plaza, Union StreetGardenprivate residence (2011),PowellStreetPromenade (2012),TelegraphHillPrivate Residence (2013),Frame/Refrain(2015)publicartwork withMildred Howard atHunters Point, therenovation of BayviewOperaHouse (2016),andYerbaBuena Island Hilltop Park (2012-present).“AllProjects,” Hood DesignStudio, accessed online February13,2024, https://www.hooddesignstudio.com/allprojects-1
have worked onseveralurbanSanFranciscoprojects including Bayside Plaza (177 SteuartStreet,1986),which includes the Aurora fountainbyRuthAsawa,as wellas the California Palace of the Legionof Honor(1991-6), Southwest WaterPollution Control Plant(750Phelps Street, 1979-81,withEDAW),and the Gap Headquarters (2 FolsomStreet,1998-2002,withCherylBarton).298 GaryGeeandVincent Tai(TaiAssociates)werepracticing inSan Franciscobythe 1980s inthe Postmodernstyle.
Structural engineerT.Y.Linwas,inparticular,was a veryinfluentialfigure inModernand Late Modern architecture inthe BayArea,working onSanFrancisco projectsasthe HolidayInnHotel(750KearnyStreet,1971, withClementChen),George Moscone ConventionCenter(1981, notextant),HearstParking Garage (51 Third Street,1970),and GoldenGate University(540 MissionStreet,1978).Lin,whofounded T.Y.LinInternational,is considered “one of the world’s mostinfluentialstructuralengineers”and oftenreferred toas the “fatherof prestressed concrete.”299 Nationallyrenowned AsianAmericanarchitects alsobuiltsignificantprojects inSan Francisco,including Minoru Yamasaki’s designforthe Japanese Cultural&Trade Center(1968,bounded by Fillmore,Post, Laguna,and Gearystreets),GinWong,whoserved as designarchitectforWilliamPereira & Associates forthe Transamerica Pyramid (600 MontgomeryStreet, 1972),and FumihikoMaki’s designforYerba Buena Centerforthe Arts (701 MissionStreet, 1993).
Inthe Try Us: 1975 National Minority Business Directory, the following SanFrancisco-based architecture firms and practitioners are listed:ClementChen&Associates;RogerChinn;DelCampoAssociates;Gerson-Overstreet; Hatoyama Jun&ChoiAssociates;Eugene Lew;HenryLookAssociates;George Matsumoto&Associates;George Meu&Associates;OkamotoAssociates;Wayne Osaki;ReayTsuruta Associates;Som&Associates;MitsuruTada; UrbanDesign;Edward Wong &Associates;RobertB.Wong;WilWong;LeoS.Wou&Associates;Young & Associates;and Young &Wong Associates.300 Otherarchitects fromminoritycommunities knowntobe working inSanFrancisco inthe late twentiethcenturyinclude Yves Ghiaï(Iranian-Belgian),Oleg NicholIvanitsky (Russian),Jorge de Quesada (Cuban),and IgorSazevich(Russian-American).
298 Arbegast, MaiKitazawaCollection, 2006-11,2006-16,UC Berkeley,EnvironmentalDesignArchives, finding aid accessed online December 5,2023, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4v19r98p/; and“MaiK.Arbegast,” The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.tclf.org/pioneer/mai-k-arbegast
300 TheNational Minority BusinessDirectory wasfirstpublished in 1969.The1975 edition istheonly addition currently available online, and hasseparate listings forcontractors and engineering anddrafting services,but does not include separatelistings forlandscape architects or urban planners. Editions fromsubsequent yearsarenotreadily available atpublic library institutions in California, but could be auseful researchsource. Try Us: 1975 National Minority Business Directory (United States:U.S.Department of Labor,Manpower Administration, 1975),accessedonline February13,2024, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Try_Us/N-rnhFdSVQ0C?hl=en&gbpv=1
CitywideHistoricContextStatement
AppendixB: ShortlistofRepresentative Sites (1970-2000)Identified in Research
The following is a shortlistof representative buildings and landscapes (built1970-2000)identified during the course of researchforthis historic context statement.This list isnot comprehensive,andis focusedonproperties builtbetween1970to2000,topickupwhere the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design (19351970) Historic Context Statement leaves off.The inclusionof a propertyinthis shortlistis nota finding of historic resource eligibility.The following properties are listed inorderof theiryearof completion.
1. BARTStations (c.1970-3) – Various architects
2. SanFranciscoArt Institute (SFAI) Addition, 800 ChestnutStreet(1966-70) – Paffard Keatinge-Clay
23. North Point Townhouses,743-747 North Point Street(1978) – Donald MacDonald
24. MarketStreetCulturalLandscape (1979), including U.N.Plaza,Hallidie Plaza,and EmbarcaderoPlaza – Lawrence Halprinwith MarioJ.Ciampi&Associates and JohnCarl Warnecke &Associates
1961 The Death and Life of Great American Cities byJane Jacobs
1962 40' height limitadopted for 82 blocks ofthe Northeast Waterfront
Complexity & Contradiction byRobert Venturi
1963 Rumford Fair Housing Actin California.302
1964 UC Berkeley College ofEnvironmental Design (est. 1959) moves intonew Wurster Hall
1965 First buildingscompleted at The Sea Ranch onthe Sonoma County coast.
1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
1967 Summer of Love
Article 10 ofthe Planning Code adopted, establishes Landmarks Preservation AdvisoryBoard (LPAB), the precursor to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
1968 Federal CivilRichtsAct of1968, includingFair Housing Actclauses, passes.
First Article 10 localhistoriclandmarks are designated
SFSUThird World Liberation Front strike
Stewart Brand publishes Whole Earth Catalog
1968-69 International Trade Mart (1968, WBE, Halprin), Ferry Port Plaza (1969, SOM), USSteel Corporation Tower (1969, SOM) proposals are touchstones inthe debate about waterfront development and height limits;none are built.
Transamerica Pyramid planis also unveiledto the public.
1969 Art Enrichment Ordinance (2% for Art) for civicconstruction
Here Today surveyby publishedbyJunior League ofSan Francisco
1970 National Environmental Protection Act(NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) passed First Earth Day
1971 Urban Design Plan,largely spearheaded by PlanningDirector AllanJacobs
Jackson Square Historic District listed in the National Register, andis the first historic district inSan Francisco. Justin Herman, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) Executive Director, dies unexpectedly
The Ultimate Highrise bythe Bay Guardian published
Prop Tfails, a citywide72’ height limitsponsored byAlvinDuskin
1972 BART opens onSeptember 11
Transamerica Pyramid completed
Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors of Mono County interprets CEQAto cover private and publicprojects, not justgovernment projects, that are approved bya government agency's discretionary review
Learning from Las Vegas byRobert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour
1973 San Francisco Architectural Heritage (now, SFHeritage) founded
1973-75 OilCrisis (OilShock) Recession
1976 Department ofCity Planning (DCP)Architectural Survey
1977 The Language of Post-Modern Architecture by Charles Jencks
1978 Residential rezoning, ledbyPlanning Director Rai YukioOkamoto, lowers buildingheight limitsto 40 feet for most ofthe cityexcept the downtown financialdistrict
Supervisor Harvey Milkand Mayor George Moscone are assassinated inCity Hall
California Prop 13 fixes property tax rates at 1976 rates
Pamphlet Architecture begins publication
1979 Splendid Survivors: San Francisco’s Downtown Architectural Heritage published Archetype magazine founded and runs through 1983
1980s
1980 Planning Commission Resolution No. 8600 endorses a listof "Architecturally and/or HistoricallySignificant Buildings" whichinformsthe Guiding Downtown Development document,then the Downtown Plan
1981-82 Energy Crisis Recessions
1981 Beginning ofthe HIV/AIDSepidemic
1982 Guiding Downtown Development report by SanFrancisco PlanningDepartment
Venice Biennale (1980) Strada Novissima installed at Fort Mason Center
“California Counter Point:New West Coast Architecture” exhibitionbyIAUSand SFAIhosted inNew York
AutoCADis launched as a desktop application
1983 SFMOMA isfirst West Coast museum toestablish an architecture department
1985 Downtown Plan adopted, includesArticle 11, TDRprogram, and POPOS and 1%for art requirements in downtowndevelopments, under PlanningDirector Dean Macris
“Clos Pegas Design Competition” exhibition at SFMOMA
1986 “Lawrence Halprin: Changing Places” exhibition at SFMOMA
Prop Mpasses, acitizen-sponsored initiativethat created an annual limitonhigh-rise development
1987 CCA/C establishes an architecture program, located inPotrero Hill
