University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Community redevelopment through historic preservation: A case study of Casa de Rosas

(USC Thesis Other)

Community redevelopment through historic preservation: A case study of Casa de Rosas

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION: A CASE STUDY OF CASA DE ROSAS by Alice Elizabeth Gates A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION May 2006 Copyright 2006 Alice Elizabeth Gates Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1437823 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 1437823 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents List of Figures iii Abstract vi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Building Evaluation Report 6 History of North University Park 6 Case Study: Gateway to University Park Campus 9 Occupant History 11 Architectural History 19 Existing Conditions 44 Recommendations 49 Chapter 3: Design Study 51 CONTEXT: Hoover Corridor Master Plan 52 BUILDING & SITE 56 SUSTAINABILITY 64 ECONOMICS 66 Chapter 4: Proposed Design 70 Phase One 71 Phase Two 80 Phase Three A 85 Phase Three B 85 Phase Four 93 Chapter 5: Conclusion 1 Bibliography 103 Appendices 105 Appendix A: Sanborn Insurance Map 105 Appendix B: Assessor Map 106 Appendix C: Parcel Profile Report 107 Appendix D: Drawings of Hoover Boulevard Widening 110 Appendix E: Drawings of Existing Elevations 113 ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Figures Figure 1.1: Adams Boulevard looking east 15 Figure 1.2: Building A: Flistoric Casa de Rosas Entry from Hoover Boulevard 15 Figure 1.3: Building A: Hoover Boulevard Elevation 15 Figure 1.4: Building A: Hoover Boulevard Elevation 16 Figure 1.5: Thanksgiving dinner served in dining room 16 Figure 1.6: Building A: East Elevation, approximately 1920 17 Figure 1.7: Building B: West Elevation, Rose Court during years as Girls’ Collegiate School 17 Figure 1.8: Building A: South Courtyard Elevation, Casa de Rosas - Girls’ Collegiate School 18 Figure 1.9: a: Entry gate at Hoover Boulevard, b: Building B 18 Figure 2.0: Existing Conditions: Building Locations 20 Figure 2.1: Building A: Perspective South along Hoover Boulevard 23 Figure 2.2: Building A: North Elevation at Hoover Boulevard and Adams Boulevard 23 Figure 2.3: Building A: Main Entry to Historic Chapel 24 Figure 2.4: Building A: Historic Chapel East Elevation 24 Figure 2.5: Building A: West Interior Courtyard Elevation 25 Figure 2.6: Building A: West Interior Courtyard Elevation 25 Figure 2.7: Building A: East Elevation 25 Figure 2.8: Building A: Hoover Boulevard Entry (W est Elevation) 25 Figure 2.9: Building A: West Interior Courtyard Elevation (entry to offices) 26 Figure 2.10: Building A: North Interior Courtyard Elevation (entry to historic chapel) 26 Figure 2.11: Building A: Arcade along Hoover Boulevard 27 Figure 2.12: Building A: Second Floor 2 Woman Shelter Room 28 Figure 2.13: Building A: Second Floor 3 Woman Shelter Room 28 Figure 2.14: Building A: Character Defining Lounge Windows 29 Figure 2.15: Building A: Entrance Door under Portico 29 Figure 2.16: Building A: Stained Glass Chapel Windows 30 iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.17: Building A: Chapel Dormers, W indows 30 Figure 2.18: Building A: Altered Chapel W indows 31 Figure 2.19: Building A: R oof and Dormer 31 Figure 2.20: Building A: Painted Chapel W indows 31 Figure 2.21: Building A: Character Defining Windows, Chapel 31 Figure 2.22: Building A: South Elevation 32 Figure 2.23: Building B: Arcade around Courtyard 34 Figure 2.24: Building B: Central Courtyard Fountain 34 Figure 2.25: Building B: Courtyard and Dining Room Entry 34 Figure 2.26: Building B: SRO Hotel Second Floor 34 Figure 2.27: Building B: Courtyard and Second Floor Walkway 35 Figure 2.28: Building B: Dining Room 35 Figure 2.29: Building B: Hoover Boulevard Gate 36 Figure 2.30: Building B: South Elevation 36 Figure 2.31: Building B: Character Defining Window 36 Figure 2.32: Building B: South Door 36 Figure 2.33: Building B: North-South Walkway 37 Figure 2.34: Building C(left) Building B(right):Christ Scientist Church in Background 37 F igure 2.35: Building B : East Courtyard Arcade 3 7 Figure 2.36: Building B(left) Building C(right):Looking West, Building A in Background 37 Figure 2.37: Building C: Landscaping 3 9 Figure 2.38: Building C: Landscaping in front o f Handicap Ramp to A ccessible SRO Units 39 Figure 2.39: Building C: Second Floor Lounge-(W indows at left look down to Ballroom) 40 Figure 2.40: Building C: Second Floor Lounge 40 Figure 2.41: Building C: North Exterior Terrace 41 Figure 2.42: Building C: North Exterior Terrace 41 Figure 2.43: Building D: West Elevation 42 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.44: Building D: R oof 42 Figure 2.45: Building A(left) Building C(right): North- Adams Boulevard 43 Figure 2.46: Adams Boulevard: V iew From Building C Terrace 43 Figure 2.47: Existing Conditions Site Plan 46 Figure 2.48: Existing Conditions Ground Floor 47 Figure 2.49: Existing Conditions Second Floor. SRO and Shelter Units 48 Figure 3.1: Hoover Boulevard Master Plan over City o f LA General Framework 54 Figure 3.2: Diagram: Figure Field o f Courtyard Plan 57 Figure 3.3: Diagram: A D A A ccess- Parking, Ramps, Elevator 61 Figure 4.1: Phase 1 Ground Floor Plan 74 Figure 4.2: Phase 1 Building A Preservation and Rehabilitation 75 Figure 4.3: Phase 1 Building B Rehabilitation 76 Figure 4.4: Phase 1 Landscape and Security Rehabilitation 77 Figure 4.5: Phase 1 Parking Area 78 Figure 4.6: Phase 1 Public Accessible Restrooms 79 Figure 4.7: Phase 2 Ground Floor Plan 82 Figure 4.8: Phase 2 Building A Rehabilitation 83 Figure 4.9: Phase 2 Building C Preservation 84 Figure 4.10: Phase 3a Building D Dem olition 88 Figure 4.11: Phase 3b New Building at Northeast Comer-Ground Floor Site Plan 89 Figure 4.12: Phase 3b N ew Building at Northeast Comer-Second Floor Site Plan 90 Figure 4.13: Phase 3b N ew Building at Northeast Comer- Ground Floor Plan 91 Figure 4.14: Phase 3b N ew Building at Northeast Comer- Second Floor Plan 92 Figure 4.15: Phase 4 Plans- Expansion South o f Site 96 Figure 4.16: Phase 4 Hoover Boulevard Elevation 9 7 Figure 4.17: Site Plan Phases 1-4 98 v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abstract Historic buildings are the backdrop of our built environment; they are a tangible link to the past and connect people to their history and the history of place. The Case Study of Casa de Rosas, an 1892 Sumner P. Hunt building, aims to give the Sunshine Mission, the current owner and director, a plan with which to move forward into the future with, knowing what is significant about their landmark, and what can be done to maximize the building’s and landscape’s potential in North University Park for their clients and the greater community. This historic site and buildings has adapted to uses such as a Froebel Institute to now a women’s shelter. The plan proposes a community and cultural center for the local residents to empower them to redevelop their community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 1-Introduction Buildings and landscapes tell a story of the past. Buildings provide a tangible link to the past in a way that nothing else can. A historic building can describe a time and place in history differently than any written description or illustration. There is no way to retell or reconstruct the history of a building, and therefore the community it is in, better than with the original architecture, the historic fabric. As areas change over time, buildings are modified, yet continue to keep a record of the past- imprints of the people that have used them. With this trace of the past, buildings are the context and the foundation for the future community. This history becomes more tangible when the building moves from a record of the community’s history, to programmatic space that the current community can use in productive, practical ways. Historic buildings already fit in the surroundings of their local area. Communities are often built around a common sense of purpose. This purpose may differ greatly from place to place, but people always gather around something larger than themselves to support and work towards. “Without focus on local culture, residents do not feel they belong to a community, and it becomes difficult to raise support for local projects and activities.”1 Historic buildings are a major part of that local culture because buildings span generations of people; they are the backdrop for the events and life of a community. This sense of community can be seen as a community identity; symbol or landmark. 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Beyond the social motivations to rehabilitate historic buildings, environmental issues also play an important role. Promoting environmental sustainability through the reuse of buildings can bring the two dimensions of conservation together for the betterment of society as a whole. Buildings not only have embodied social capital, but they also have embodied energy and resources of the past that can be harnessed. It is most sustainable to develop the built environment through the reuse of those buildings that already exist based on the amount of materials consumed in a building’s original construction process. Historic buildings, not only do obviously exist, but they also contain materials that could be endangered, rare, or no longer available to the building community. “Of course, historic buildings will continue to be preserved irrespective of how many Btus they happen to embody. But this method of assessing the energy content of old buildings may serve to increase the number of them worthy of preservation, whether historic or not.” While not every building standing is worthy of preserving, many that are tom down everyday could be reused and extend the life of those resources within. Rehabilitation of historic buildings can be successful solely for the economic benefits. “Some of the most important benefits to society from preserving and adapting our built environment are economic; providing jobs, stimulating business activity, revitalizing downtown areas.”3 According to Earl B. Seaman, president of the Heritage Group Limited, a development corporation, “recycling [buildings] has proved to cost 25 percent less than new construction and a sophisticated tenancy is 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. responding to the increased interest in our heritage.”4 This economic value of historic preservation is moving development in the direction of preservation development because it is highly labor intensive, rather than material intensive. Given that scholars, architects, planners, developers and others recognize these as some of the many benefits of historic preservation, this paper will focus on the sustainable, economic, and contextual benefits of historic preservation through the exploration of the historic5 building, Casa de Rosas. Motivation The motivation for this exploration comes from the potential seen in historic buildings to benefit the surrounding community. Community redevelopment does not happen only through new construction or rehabilitation of buildings, but occurs when people take ownership and come together to rebuild their social capital. Historic buildings are a key element in this process because a community is more likely to take ownership of something they know, a historic building people have grown up around, and that is part of their collective memory. Goals Historic buildings should be used for the purpose of redeveloping their community. Through their preservation, communities would gain the space and sense of place and identity needed to develop and join together for common purposes. In regard to the Case Study, which will be community space focused, that 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. outcome would create the best possible facilities for the local residents using the spaces. The final goal in the preservation of historic buildings for the purpose of redeveloping community is that, through their preservation, new infill development would be spurred on around the historic buildings. By jump starting the redevelopment of a community, both financially and socially, new businesses and services will be encouraged to build, rent, or preserve more historic fabric in the local area and infill vacant parcels. Case Study Goals The goals of the Case Study of Casa de Rosas aim to give the Sunshine Mission, the current owner and director, a plan with which to move forward into the future knowing what is significant about their landmark, and what can be done to maximize the building’s and landscape’s potential in North University Park for their clients and the greater community. To provide valuable services for community, recreational and social gatherings, with spaces that help financially support the mission of Casa de Rosas and Sunshine Mission. Creation of a master plan for Casa de Rosas that would do the following is proposed: ■ Rehabilitate the existing non-residential buildings for new program space for community and residents ■ Create a site plan to connect all of the courtyards and entrances through controlled access to parts of the site based on privacy and times of day 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■ Evaluate new construction plans on site for program space and parking ■ Evaluate sustainable practices that could be used on or in the buildings and site ■ Provide a phasing plan for the rehabilitation of the entire site in a feasible and cost effective manner ■ Preserve the historic comer of Hoover Boulevard and Adams Boulevard These goals culminate in helping Casa de Rosas become a center in the community that is an identity and a preserved site for community gathering. Through these reached goals, Casa de Rosas will be able to serve as a precedent for the greater development community as to the benefits of a preservation effort of this type. 1 Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000), 170 2 James Marston Fitch and William Bobenhausen, “Toward Sustainability,” in American Building, The Environmental Forces That Shape It (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 330 3 Thomas D. Bever, The Economic Benefits o f H istoric Preservation (Washington DC: Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, US Department o f the Interior, May 1978), 1 4 Andrea O. Dean, “Adaptive Use: Economic And Other Advantages,” AIA Journal, June 1976, 27 5 A Building, site, district, object, or structure evaluated as historically significant-must meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation: “The quality o f significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity o f location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns o f our history; or B. That are associated with the lives o f significant persons in or past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics o f a type, period, or method o f construction, or that represent the work o f a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.” Patrick W. Andrus, edited by Rebecca H. Shrimpton. National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria fo r Evaluation #15, 1990 Revised 1991, 1995, 1997 (Washington DC: US Dept, o f the Interior), 4 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 2- Building Evaluation Report Casa de Rosas has a long and interesting history in the North University Park community. Spanning over 110 years, the complex of architecturally and historically significant buildings are a part of the Los Angeles landscape and have served her citizens in many different capacities. The goal of this report was to compile an overall history of Casa de Rosas, both occupant and architectural through primary source material. The report aims to determine the integrity1 of the overall site and character defining features of the buildings and landscape. Through these, to then give recommendations for appropriate building use and further study. History of North University Park The area just south of downtown Los Angeles was home to the wealthiest people in the city after the turn of the 20th Century. Mostly built between 1900 and 1920, the booming neighborhood drew elites from downtown and from across the country . The comer of Adams Boulevard and Figueroa Boulevard was one of the busiest intersections in the country at the turn of the century. To the west of this intersection was a community called North University Park. The thriving area was named for the proximity to the University of Southern California just south of the neighborhood. Founded in 1880, the University attracted students and professors to the Los Angeles. “Although the region lacked paved streets or electric lights, citizens rallied to establish the university in 1880. Within the decade USC had Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dormitories; a marching band; an alumni association; a college of letters, arts, and sciences; a school of music; a medical school; and a school of fine arts.” This growing community north of the campus produced great architecture as well as facilities for the community during the prosperous time. At the comer of Adams Boulevard and Hoover Boulevard the Froebel Institute, called Casa de Rosas was built in 1894, seeming to say that even the children were well cared for in this area and education was a priority. Along Hoover Boulevard to the north and south great homes and commercial areas were built. To the south, a commercial area grew on what today is USC’s campus and continuing north past what is now Interstate 10 commercial buildings were built to support the prosperous community. Two major events spurred the decline of the area. The first was the Great Depression of 1929. The difficult time during the 1930s forced people to sell their luxurious homes, or divide their property and homes to be rented by boarders. This changed the makeup of the community and also led the way for a more diverse population. Diversification of the community continues today with many minority groups calling the area home.4 The second major event that changed North University Park was the construction of Interstate 10, the Santa Monica Freeway, in 1962. The freeway was planned just south of downtown Los Angeles running west to the ocean at Santa Monica. This construction route brought the freeway through existing neighborhoods the entire length of the project. The freeway cut the diverse and increasingly poor community of North University Park and West Adams in half and property declined on the north and south sides of the construction. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The 1980s marked the beginning of a revival for the community. The value of the historic homes was realized and residents began to take ownership and restore that which was already part of their community. The West Adams Heritage Association (WAHA) was founded in 1983 during this period of awakening in the neighborhoods. WAHA “works to promote commercial development of the major streets, to clean up trash, to paint out graffiti, to encourage cooperation between ethnic groups, and to win the same level of city services that are routine in more affluent parts of town. But WAHA has a special perspective: it believes that part of what makes our neighborhood unique is the classic architecture of its homes, a treasure for the city and for the residents of West Adams.”5 This pride and sense of ownership has revived the neighborhood in the past twenty five years. The greater city has recently also recognized the significant architecture and the convenience of living so close to downtown and has begun to move back into the greater West Adams neighborhood. The North University Park community will continue to build on the diversity and history of the past 100 years as it prospers and is recognized for the wealth of architectural and regional history within it. 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Case Study: Gateway to University Park Campus The reviving Hoover Corridor just south of the Interstate 10 in Los Angeles is gaining momentum in becoming a gateway to USC’s University Park Campus and the North University Park Neighborhood. This small five square block area has many characteristics of a ‘main street’- storefronts along the sidewalks, pedestrian oriented entries from the sidewalks, commercial and cultural tenants as well as office space above. Though not formally a part of the National Main Street6 Program, a program that helps communities revitalize their main streets through a process of discovery and highlighting of special qualities, many of the same concepts have been used in this effort. Much of the recent work started with Giroux Glass Inc. owner and President Anne-Merelie Murrell.7 She purchased many of the buildings in the area with the purpose of redeveloping them. Her goal was to improve the image of the Hoover Corridor as an entry to North University Park. Although now a real estate entrepreneur, Murrell claims that she began the process striving for the improvement of the area. At 24th Street and Hoover, interested theatre groups gathered between 1995 to 1997 planning and creating a non-profit family theatre group. They chose one of Murrell’s buildings, an old garment factory built in 1924 that had served as a stable and garage through the years.8 Renovated in 1997 with funds from USC’s Neighborhood Outreach grant and other community partners, the group today gives back to the community in more ways than just the renovated theatre building. They run classes for elementary school students addressing the students’ lives through theater art. Regarding the 24th Street Theatre, Barbara Solomon, former vice provost 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for faculty/minority affairs at USC said the opportunity to “develop within our neighborhood is a very visible reflection of our commitment to arts and cultural programs for community residents.”9 This project has revived the area and given a new spark to the area where many local residents spend time. Just across Hoover Boulevard from the 24th Street Theatre is a Victorian Village of two story commercial buildings. This block is also owned by Murrell who said her primary motivation was to make the neighborhood better, while also hoping to get a return on the investment in the commercial buildings. Murrell transformed the block with bright color facades and white lights illuminating the facades at night1 0 . She partnered with the Community Redevelopment Agency for partial financing and leased space to the USC School of Architecture for studio space.1 1 This revitalization has brought in new tenants and renewed interest in the small block of Hoover Boulevard. The area continues to prosper and improve all to the advantage of the entire community and to the visitors passing by to USC. This small part of Hoover Boulevard acts just as the Main Street Program would have it, taking advantage of the cultural heritage of the area and showing the pride of the residents to visitors and locals alike. Just three blocks south of this area of Hoover Boulevard is Casa de Rosas. Separated by the Hoover Recreation Center the two nodes on Hoover Boulevard are in close proximity to each other and provide different but equally useful services to the local residents. 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Occupant History The main building, “Casa de Rosas” on Hoover Boulevard was built in 1892 for the Froebel Institute. The Froebel Institute was an innovative school for teaching children. The Froebel Institute used the principles of founding educator Frederich Froebel. Bom in 1782, Froebel spent from 1816 to 1837 creating schools and programs for youth. He worked until his death in 1852 training children and their 1 9 mothers as ‘child nurturers’. This progressive movement in education would become known as the kindergarten model for teaching children. The most interesting part of Froebel’s vision was that kindergarten, which means children’s garden, was to tmly become just that, a place where they could grow and develop individually and uniquely to their true potential. Children should develop in a physically pleasing environment, and the environment would, in fact, assist in the 1 9 development of the students. All of these principles were carried into the design for Casa de Rosas, which means House of Roses. The wealthy neighborhood surrounding Casa de Rosas helped support the Institute and its goals of educating children from an early age in the superior environment. The principles were also adopted by feminists and reformers at the turn of the century. They may have led to the formation of the Girls’ Collegiate School that would occupy the site after the Froebel Institute. A fire destroyed all but the main building in 1903.1 4 Two dormitory buildings were then added to aid in the new use as a Girls’ Collegiate Boarding School in 1908.1 5 The Ballroom and Hotel were added in 1915 according to the 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Landmark Application for the City of Los Angeles.1 6 The architect for these buildings is unknown. In a marketing brochure for the school published in 1923, the buildings and location of the campus are used as a major selling point to attract parents and students to the school. “The ‘Casa de Rosas,’ central building of the Girls’ Collegiate School, has the reputation of being the most artistic and complete t 7 private school building in Southern California.” This site became a haven for girls whether they were enrolled in the day program, or boarded there fulltime. Girls were encouraged to stay at the school from junior high through graduate work. The site was again the major draw to bring students to the school. Early Advertisements said, “Location: Los Angeles, the heart of Southern California, fourteen miles distant from the Pacific Ocean, protected by great mountain ranges, lies in a happy valley of sunshine and flowers, and knows neither extreme cold nor intense heat. With a population of 700,000, it has become a musical, artistic and educational center, and its progressive spirit makes it a most desirable residential city. The School is situated in the older residence section-Adams Street, long famous for the beauty of its trees and foliage, and its charming homes. Occupying nearly two acres of land, there is space for beautiful gardens, fine 1 8 tennis courts and recreation ground.” 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the 1930s the Casa de Rosas became a hotel and restaurant. During World War II the buildings were used as US Army barracks and a showplace for USO entertainment. International students from USC are said to also have occupied the residences during the 1940’s.1 9 90 Since 1951, the site has served as a shelter for homeless women. Sunshine Mission’s founder, Sister Essie Binkley West began offering shelter to homeless women from a facility at the comer of Sixth and Main Streets in downtown Los Angeles in 1941. West was a radio evangelist and contemporary of Aimee Semple McPherson. When the City condemned her facility, Sister West purchased Casa de Rosas for $4,000. Her program was known as The Old Time Faith, Inc. In 1951 Sister West moved her entire program, which included the Sunshine Mission to the site.2 1 From Casa de Rosas she continued to offer evangelical radio broadcasts across the western United States, as well as publications and services to the homeless and needy of Los Angeles. She continued all of this service while living at Casa de Rosas until her death in 1978.2 2 The Old Time Faith, Inc. operated with donations from Sister West's many followers. Joseph ‘Sparky’ Saldana, one of Sister West’s supporters took control. He was an editor and reporter for the Pasadena Star News and a publicist for Latino movie stars. After Sister West's death, many of the programs of The Old Time Faith ceased operation. The Sunshine Mission emerged as the focus of the organization and continued its mission of providing for the homeless and needy women of Los 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Angeles. After Saldana moved on, his secretary took control of the Old Time Faith.2 3 With continual change in leadership and the buildings themselves deteriorating the mid 1980s seemed to indicate the end of the organization and mission. Its donors were becoming sparse and Casa de Rosas had been plagued by many fires. Yet, by the late 1980s the Los Angeles’ homeless population had mushroomed, creating an increased need for programs like the Sunshine Mission. Control of The Old Time Faith, Inc. then passed to individuals committed to continuing The Sunshine Mission's history of service to the poor and homeless. The second goal of the Sunshine Mission was to adaptively reuse a part of the community’s architectural history by creating modem and safe housing for its homeless and low-income citizens. Religious affiliation of the agency ended when the group reorganized as Casa de Rosas, Incorporated, became a 501c3 tax-exempt California corporation.2 4 This corporation continues to run the Sunshine Mission and act as the legal owners of the property and buildings of Casa de Rosas. Sunshine Mission today is the oldest continually operating women’s shelter in Los Angeles. 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Adams Boulevard looking east(Automobile Club Building A: Historic Casa de Rosas Entry from at Figueroa Boulevard in distance) Hoover Boulevard Figure 1.3 Building A: Hoover Boulevard Elevation (Building B in background at right) 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1.4 Building A: Hoover Boulevard Elevation Figure 1.5 Thanksgiving dinner served in dining room 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1.6 Building A: East Elevation, approximately 1920 Figure 1.7 Building B: West Elevation, called the Rose Court during years as Girls’ Collegiate School 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1.8 Building A: South Courtyard Elevation, called Casa de Rosas during years as Girls’ Collegiate School Figure 1.9 a.(Top): Entry gate at Hoover Boulevard b.(Bottom): Building B, women gathered under colonnade in front o f courtyard 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Architectural History Casa de Rosas, or House of Roses, was named for the climbing vine roses on the walls of the exterior of the building. The 1892 main building was designed by 7 ^ Sumner P. Hunt. At the time he was one of the most well known architects in Los Angeles, having designed buildings in downtown and surrounding communities. David Gebhard and Robert Winter, in their guide book to Los Angeles say this about Casa de Rosas, “Charles F. Lummis labeled this as Mission and so it must be. It was stuccoed and had an arcade supported by short Tuscan columns. And above all it had a patio. Historically it was important as one of the very early instances of the self-conscious cultivation of the myth of the Mission in a new building.” The Mission Style is known as a revival of the Spanish Colonial era, the building has also been referred to as simply Spanish Colonial Revival. This building has the rounded 7 7 arches often thought of as a signature of this style. The building has also been classified as Spanish Renaissance by the June 1893 issue of Builder and Contractor o f Los Angeles. 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NO SCALE Figure 2.0 Existing Conditions: Building Locations Known today as Building A, the main 1892 building meets the comer of Adams and Hoover with an open portico marking the entrance to what was originally a chapel. The main building surrounds an angled triangular courtyard enclosed on one side by a double arched colonnade. The building has a tile roof and a Hispanic influence of stucco sheathing. A main lounge off this space steps out towards Hoover Boulevard as a gesture to the street. This architectural gesture is harder to see today due to a widening of Hoover Boulevard in 1976 when the front of the building was literally cut off to accommodate the new sidewalk and widened boulevard. Connecting the chapel space and the lounge is a three story long rectangle of offices on the first floor, and bedrooms on the second and third floor. 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The main building, having been built prior to the 1893 Columbian Exhibition was noted in Chicago at the Exhibition. Kate Galpin says in the September 1895 Land o f Sunshine, “Casa de Rosas was pronounced by the judges at the Columbian Exposition a model of school architecture.” This building was also noted in a 1907 visitors guide to Los Angeles, “The Girls’ Collegiate School in the picturesque Casa 9Q de Rosas is one of the best known of the school for girls...” The plan of the buildings is a significant and defining feature of the complex. Each building was designed with consideration for the interaction with the outdoors. Playing off of the Spanish mission history of southern California and the southwest, courtyards were integrated into the design of the buildings. The envelope of the buildings on both the courtyard and exterior buildings sides are significant for the shape of the facades as well as the materials and the ornament contained within those facades. The exterior fafade of building A has ornamental friezes of foliage and shields demarcating the entrance. The hip roof of building A has hipped shape dormers with windows at each of the living room units on the third floor. The abundance of windows throughout the building helped with natural ventilation and heat dispersal out of the third floor. The chapel which is a double height space also has hipped dormers with windows to let heat out and bring light in. The ground floor main spaces, such as the lounge and chapel have stained glass windows on the exterior facades adding to the historic features and definition. The different profiles of the roofs of each building mark unique elements. 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OA “The construction is cement plaster over metal lath on a frame building.” Hunt, in evaluating a regional style for southern California cited the missions and the aesthetics of stucco and concrete. The missions he wrote “are an ever-present illustration of the beauty of a form and material radically different from the result to be obtained from the wooden constructions so commonly used in American suburban work.” Regarding the stucco and concrete, Hunt wrote in the same LA Times article that it could create a style of Spanish, Mooresque, or Italian Renaissance. These 3 1 styles were then the most appropriate for the region’s climate Hunt claimed. The arches in the arcades along the courtyards are accentuated by the smooth stucco with minimal ornamentation. 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.1 Building A: Perspective South along Hoover Boulevard Figure 2.2 Building A: North Elevation at Hoover Boulevard and Adams Boulevard 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.3 Building A: Main Entry to Historic Chapel Figure 2.4 Building A: Historic Chapel East Elevation 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■ ■ I Figure 2.5 Building A: West Interior Courtyard Elevation Figure 2.6 Building A: West Interior Courtyard Elevation II mm m k Figure 2.7 Building A: East Elevation Figure 2.8 Building A: Hoover Boulevard Entry (West Elevation) 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .s a p s ® !§§§ Figure 2.9 Building A: West Interior Courtyard Elevation (entry to offices) Figure 2.10 Building A: North Interior Courtyard Elevation (entry to historic chapel) 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.11 Building A: Arcade along Hoover Boulevard Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.12 Building A: Second Floor 2 Woman Shelter Room Figure 2.13 Building A: Second Floor 3 Woman Shelter Room 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.14 Building A: Character Defining Lounge Windows Figure 2.15 Building A: Entrance Door under Portico 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.16 Building A: Stained Glass Chapel Windows Figure 2.17 Building A: Chapel Dormers, Windows 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.18 Figure 2.19 Building A: Altered Chapel Windows Building A: R oof and Dormer Figure 2.20 Figure 2.21 Building A: Painted Chapel Windows Building A: Character Defining Windows, Chapel 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.22 Building A: South Elevation 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Building B, called the Rose Court, is the farthest south on the site and is almost square shaped with a square courtyard in the center of the two story building. The architect is unknown for this building, and it is believed to have been built in 1915 as a hotel for the Girls’ Collegiate School. “This commodious and charming building follows the general Spanish type of architecture. Generous arcades and a beautiful court are distinctive features, and the first floor contains living room, music room, dining room, kitchen and its offices, T 9 an attractive library and practice rooms.” The first floor of building B contains the kitchen, servery, dining room, lounge, recreation rooms as well as the laundry and other back of house spaces. The second floor of building B contains bedroom units. The courtyard on the first floor is surrounded by the building on three sides. The fourth side, facing Hoover Boulevard, has a double row of columns enclosing the space. This courtyard pours out through the columns down a few stairs to meet Building A and Hoover Boulevard, thus connecting the buildings and their functions. 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.23 Figure 2.24 Building B: Arcade around Courtyard Building B: Central Courtyard Fountain Figure 2.25 Figure 2.26 Building B: Courtyard and Dining Room Entry Building B: SRO Hotel Second Floor 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.27 Building B: Courtyard and Second Floor Walkway Figure 2.28 Building B: Dining Room 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.29 Building B: Hoover Boulevard Gate Figure 2.30 Building B: South Elevation ■HHH1 f l 1 \ l Figure 2.31 Figure 2.32 Building B: Character Defining Window Building B: South Door 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.33 Building B: North-South Walkway Figure 2.35 Building B: East Courtyard Arcade Figure 2.34 Building C(left) Building B(right): Christ Scientist Church in Background Figure 2.36 Building B(left) Building C(right): Looking West, Building A in Background Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Building C, which includes the ballroom, was also believed to be built in 1915, architect unknown. The building is a two-story Spanish Mission Revival style structure. The building is wood framed with cement plaster over metal lath on the interior walls and lath with stucco on the exterior walls. It is a rectangular building on a 4,600 square foot footprint. “A beautiful two-story building, in harmony with the architecture of the Casa de Rosas, adjoins it on Adams Street. Its first floor contains a large gymnasium and recreation hall, a fine laboratory, art studio, music rooms, and class rooms.” The ground floor contains a large and impressive space that became the ballroom after the school use of a gymnasium. In a Craftsman style, the space has a large fireplace and brick hearth as the central focus. Smaller meeting rooms and alcoves surround the large ballroom on the first floor. The second floor is entirely residential units surrounding the double height ballroom in the center. The interior of the ballroom has exposed metal trusses and wood paneling. Building D, is a more recent addition from 1960. At the far northeast comer of the site, this one story building includes two classrooms and small storage rooms and restrooms. This building, although not detracting significantly from the other historic buildings, does not add to the architectural heritage of the site. 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.37 Building C: Landscaping Figure 2.38 Building C: Landscaping in front o f Handicap Ramp to Accessible SRO Units 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.39 Building C: Second Floor Lounge-(Windows at left look down to Ballroom) Figure 2.40 Building C: Second Floor Lounge 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.41 Building C: North Exterior Terrace Figure 2.42 Building C: North Exterior Terrace 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.43 Building D: West Elevation Figure 2.44 Building D: R oof 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2.45 Building A(lefi) Building C(right): North- Adams Boulevard Figure 2.46 Adams Boulevard: View From Building C Terrace 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Sunshine Mission was listed as City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument #241 on April 9, 1981. During this time, the mission was just trying to keep the buildings from deteriorating further, and they hoped that becoming a recognized monument would give them more leverage and protection for future ventures, as well as qualify them for potential historic building benefits. Casa de Rosas was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as US-04000679 on July 14, 2004. Existing Conditions In order for Sunshine Mission to follow through on their goals of rehabilitating their buildings and providing modern housing for the women, Casa de Rosas applied for and received two million dollars in 1990. This funding came from the City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency and the State of California to create safe, modem housing for its homeless and low-income citizens. This work was done by M2 A architects from Hollywood and included 55 single units of the SRO hotel and 16 emergency shelter beds. As a requirement of the government funding of the project, the work was completed to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Four SRO units were added to accommodate handicap guests on the first floor of the buildings, two in Building A, and two in Building C. These four new rooms also required parking spaces for each as this was a new addition to the existing non conforming building. The modernization of the housing also included updating the systems in the buildings, including mechanical, electrical and plumbing work. 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Northridge Earthquake also led to further work which was funded by CDD and FEMA. This money was used to stabilize the structure while continuing to take into account the significant characteristics of the Spanish Mission Revival architecture. This funding in the 1990s, however, did not provide enough for the preservation of the non residential spaces of the complex. These spaces today remain in urgent danger of further deterioration. The large gathering spaces of the original complex are perhaps in the most danger of losing integrity. This includes the main Ballroom and historic Chapel. The exterior stucco and plaster ornament is in need of stabilization to prevent loss of more features. While the need varies around the buildings, Casa de Rosas should be stabilized first to ensure its continued place in North University Park. 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 - Figure 2.47 Existing Conditions Site Plan 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NON PAVED PAFKNG AREA HISTORIC: CHAPEL CURRENT: DONATS CLOTHES storage HISTORIC; m ex ttin q ALCOVE Hit TO y o o o % 'K ^ s w e a r - ndcM HISTORIC: SALlflOOM CURRENT: RRW'TURE 9TORN3E t I A W 6 A R K7CHEN ALLEY NO SCALE Figure 2.48 Existing Conditions Ground Floor. Hatch represents work done by M2A Architects 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NO SCALE 4 Figure 2.49 Existing Conditions Second Floor. SRO and Shelter Units hatched indicating work done by M2A. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Recommendations * Recommend the stabilization and preservation of as much as possible of the character defining features of the historic buildings A, B & C. Also recommended to remove non contributing elements as well as noncontributing Building D. ■ Recommend a materials conservation study and structural analysis to determine stability of existing resources by professionals using more invasive testing than surface inventories. 1 “the authenticity o f physical characteristics from which properties obtain their significance” http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb39/nrb39_II.htm 2 West Adams Heritage Association http://www.westadamsheritage.com/aboutwestadams.html 3 Steven B. Sample. “Building a Great History.” University o f Southern California Glimpses o f History 1880-1995 Los Angeles: USC. April 1995. iii 4 West Adams Then and Now, Van Buren Place Community Restoration Association http://www.westadams-normandie.com/HistoricWestAdams.asp 5 http://www.westadamsheritage.com/index.html 6 The National Main Street Center The National Main Street Program grew from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1980. This campaign sought to restore life to downtown main streets across the country. The Main Street Center o f the National Trust for Historic Preservation has only continued to gain favor as well as a proven track record in the last 25 years. The program aims to “revitalize older, traditional business districts throughout the United States.” This program gives communities specific points and principles to guide community driven revitalization effort. The approach used looks primarily at economic issues that may have led to the decline o f the main street, both physically and economically, in the first place, and how to help turn that problem around through the use o f the physical environment and organizational programs in the community. The Main Street Program also aims to help communities realize what is special and unique about their specific community or neighborhood, be it the architecture, urban design, historical events, pedestrian access, or commercial stores. By finding that which is unique and successful already about their quality o f life, a community can reenergize the other parts o f their community to that same level o f success. This program continues to work as more and more main streets are reused and can play a new role in their community. The concept behind this approach to revitalization through economics and community assets is really the community’s heritage. This heritage, as shown through the commercial district, acts as a “physical expression o f your [the] community’s history.” 7 M eg Sullivan, “Architecture, Arts Students Create Designs to Nurture a Neighborhood,” USC Chronicle, January 24, 2000. 8 Irene Fertik, “24-Theater o f the Absorbed,” USC Trojan Family Magazine, June 1, 1999. 9 Carol Tucker, “Neighborhood Theater to Thrive,” USC Chronicle, October 28, 1996. 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 Carol Tucker, “One Woman’s Vision Can Make a Real Difference,” USC Chronicle, September 30, 1996. 1 1 Carol Tucker, “The Gems Right Next Door,” USC Chronicle, September 30, 1996. 1 2 Irene M. Lilley, Friedrich Froebel (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 13 The Froebel Foundation, www.froebel.com/about-froeberl.htm, 2005. 14 Cecilia Rasmussen, “Mission Maintains Its Efforts to Educate Women," Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1993. 1 5 See Appendix A, Sanborn Insurance Map 1 6 Michael Saldana, Historic-Cultural Monument Declaration, (Los Angeles: Old Time Faith, Inc.), January 12, 1980. 17 Alice Parsons and Jeanne Dennen, Girls ’ Collegiate School, Thirty-First Year, (Los Angeles: Girls’ Collegiate School, 1923), 8 1 8 Ibid., 9 1 9 Cecilia Rasmussen, “Mission Maintains Its Efforts to Educate Women," Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1993. 2 0 Ibid. 2 1 Ibid. 22 Tom Owen, Preliminary Report on the Restoration o f the Sunshine Mission, (Los Angeles: LA Community Design Center), 1979. 2 3 Stephen McKnight, “Casa de Rosas,” Los Angeles, 2001. 2 4 Ibid. 2 5 Cecilia Rasmussen, “M ission Maintains Its Efforts to Educate Women," Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1993. 2 6 David Gebhard and Robert Winter, An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles, (Layton: Gibbs Smith, 2003), 284 2 7 John J.-G. Blumenson, Identifying American Architecture 2n d Edition, (Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1981), 5 2 8 Kate Tupper Galpin, “Our Schools,” Land o f Sunshine, Sept. 1895, 181 2 9 Mary A lice Phillips, Los Angeles, a Guidebook. Los Angeles, 1907. 3 0 Sumner P. Hunt, “Architecture,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1897, 13 3 1 Ibid. 3 2 Alice Parsons and Jeanne Dennen G irls’ Collegiate School, Thirty-First Year. (Los Angeles: Girls’ Collegiate School, 1923), 10 3 3 Ibid., 9 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3: Design Study This design study takes into account the Building Evaluation Report (Chapter 2) and builds on the given recommendations for the preservation of Casa de Rosas and well as the needs of the Sunshine Mission in creating a center for the community while continuing to function as a women’s shelter in the North University Park neighborhood. Project Statement The mission of Casa de Rosas is to assist in the transition of adult, unaccompanied women from homelessness and other dysfunctional lifestyles to productive supportive services, emergency shelter, and affordable housing in a safe and caring community environment.1 The purpose of the first three phases of development is to preserve the non residential spaces of Casa de Rosas. The goal in their preservation is to open these spaces up to the community as public spaces. This development is intended for both the women at Sunshine Mission (the residents) and the local community. The objective is to determine the most appropriate uses for the non residential spaces in the historic buildings, create a plan for an infill building on the same site, and look at possibilities for new buildings within the Adams/Hoover node that could serve expansion functions of Sunshine Mission. The expansion, Sunshine Center, will take on the mission of Casa de Rosas while also providing a resource to the local community, by means of a center for 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. health, training, creativity, support and entertainment. This center will provide the local residents in North University Park with spaces to meet and gather as a community and receive valuable services. CONTEXT Casa de Rosas was built in West Adams at the beginning of the most prosperous period of time in her history. Through the last 130 years the community’s residents have seen fluctuations in wealth and citizens and they have seen a metropolis grow up around them. The extravagant history the buildings have lived through helps to show the people that now live in North University Park how they are linked to the history of the greater city of Los Angeles and the region. By giving the current residents and other people in the community this tangible link to the past, they can appreciate, learn about and add their own piece of history to the story. Hoover Corridor Master Plan The goal for the master plan was to take into account everything that is already functioning successfully in North University Park and recognize problems or unsuccessful infrastructure that should be changed. Beyond the infrastructure, development of infill buildings is planned around the preserved historic sections. Studying the Hoover Corridor led to a main diagram of the area south of the I-10 Freeway as three major nodes along the corridor (Figure 3.1). The first node is 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Victorian Village at 24th Street and Hoover. The second node is the intersection of Adams Boulevard and Hoover Boulevard where Casa de Rosas is located on the southeast comer. The third node is the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Hoover Boulevard where the University Village Shopping Complex is located. These three nodes provide the main shopping areas and gathering spaces for the local community. All three nodes are accessible by foot for the local residents and are connected by transit lines. The City of Los Angeles calls the Hoover Corridor at the first and third node a ‘Neighborhood District’, “a focal point for surrounding residential neighborhoods and containing a diversity of land uses such as restaurants, retail outlets, grocery stores, child care facilities, small professional offices, community meeting rooms, pharmacies, religious facilities and other similar services. The clustering of uses minimizes automobile trip-making and encourages walking to and from adjacent neighborhoods. Pedestrian-oriented areas are encouraged, and the district may be served by a local shuttle service. Generally, Neighborhood Districts are at a floor area ratio of 1.5:1 or less and characterized by 1- or 2- story buildings.”2 The City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework identifies the first and third nodes as already existing and functioning because of the commercial aspects at each node. But currently the second node at Hoover Boulevard and Adams Boulevard may draw just as many pedestrians in a weekend for the purpose of 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recreation and gathering as the other two nodes. A comprehensive study of the Casa de Rosas site as it sits in the urban grid, and the way the site itself is designed gave insight as to how to develop the complex further into the center of this second node on Hoover Boulevard. Currently, the busiest comer at this intersection is the northeast comer, a public park, the Hoover Recreation Center, which has over a hundred people at it each day of the weekend playing or watching soccer, basketball, or gathering for parties at the picnic tables. The lighted basketball courts also populate the park late at night. These already effective amenities encourage the improvement of the intersection by providing a base for local commercial and other community spaces to prosper. CD > Cm ? o H l i m m i H IH Pico B ! t i l l — - H « B u r n t San Vicente B ! Figure 3.1 Hoover Boulevard Master Plan over City o f LA General Framework 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The node at Hoover Boulevard and Adams Boulevard is also connected to the greater city through the infrastructure that is already in place. In general, historic buildings are tied to the existing urban infrastructure. Historic buildings are often located in urban areas, and usually have transit lines and services connecting them to the greater city and grid. Transit stops are often within walking distance of the historic buildings. This proximity makes the historic building more accessible to a greater population of the community and more sustainable by encouraging their users to take public transportation. Casa de Rosas already being tied to the city services is a cost and resources savings that can make the project feasible based on not having to build the infrastructure. “.. .the cost of rehabilitation old structures generally runs 25-33 % less than comparable new construction. In those cases where the costs were equivalent, the preservation project provided greater amenities-time saved in - 2 construction, more space in either height or volume, or the right location.” The goal of the new community spaces at Casa de Rosas would be to give these local residents more amenities and more types of gathering spaces to take advantage of in the close proximity to other places they already frequent. The locations of the park and the major circulation along the Hoover Corridor and across Adams Boulevard locate the public entrance and public spaces of the complex on the northern border of the property on Adams Boulevard. The new commercial space, a cyber cafe, and gathering space for the community will create this central node on the Hoover Corridor. 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Beyond marking the northern edge of the property for an infill building, a new addition was planned south of the existing on Hoover Boulevard. For the mission to continue to be effective in Los Angeles it will need to expand and add technology space which is difficult within the historic fabric of the current property. This plan for a new building connected to the existing will provide space for the local residents as well as those in the mission’s work of housing women. BUILDING & SITE Historic buildings can become precedents for a growing region’s urban pattern and architecture. “Every city is a living reservoir of historically derived building types. There types are formally consistent, stylistically diverse, and able to accommodate functional change.”4 Asserting historic typologies into a city will continue the pattern of the urban fabric and link the region together regardless of the age of each of the developments. The presence of the courtyard style in Los Angeles is due to the Mediterranean climate, the outdoor living style and the wealth of the region.5 The three historic buildings on the site of Casa de Rosas are all courtyard buildings and serve as precedents for any new construction on or near the site. Designed in a typology that responded to the place it was built means that the courtyard continues to be relevant to this culture and climate of southern California and should continue to be included in modem designs. 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NO SCALE Figure 3.2 Diagram: Figure Field o f Courtyard Plan 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The historic building elegantly meets the corner of Hoover and Adams Boulevards with a portico that turns and accentuates the edge of the building. Casa de Rosas sits very close to the sidewalk and property line on Hoover Boulevard which marks the street edge and creates the wall of the exterior room of the street. This is a significant gesture that should not be lost or deterred from with the infill of new buildings, or other development within Sunshine Mission’s control. Hoover Boulevard is at the north-south intersection of two grids in Los Angeles, therefore, creating awkward angled parcels the entire length of the boulevard. This is significant when looking at the plan for Casa de Rosas, how it was laid out, and then how each of the other buildings were laid out accordingly with small pedestrian paths connecting them. Within the site, there are also significant views as one moves to and from each building and courtyard. This movement through the buildings is how a person experiences the architecture and outdoor rooms created by the buildings. The buildings have been set on the site in a specific pattern over time. Making historic buildings usable for the future often requires new additions and upgrades in technology and systems. Casa de Rosas has required and will continue to need to be upgraded to stay current with technology and the needs of the people it serves. An example of a similar time period building being rehabilitated for the public is the A.K. Smiley Library in the City of Redlands, California. This library was built in 1898 in Moorish or mission style by T.R. Griffith. The growth of the city required the library to grow as well, and in 1920 a wing was added. Two 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. more wings were added in 1926 and 1930.6 Similar to Casa de Rosas, this library had many additions within a short period of time. In 1990 Architectural Resources Group was hired for another addition of 10,000 sq ft and restoration of the existing 33,000 sq ft. In keeping the low profile of the historic buildings, the new additions are two wings of a first floor and basement. The existing interior spaces were redesigned to function more efficiently in the entire complex. This project utilized a phased construction plan so that the building could remain open during the construction.7 The Americans with Disabilities Act “Special Provisions” section deals with historic buildings and requirements for meeting ADA standards. Realizing that historic buildings may not be able to be brought up to all of the ADA requirements for new construction, there are minimum requirements that are expected to be o achieved in order to make a historic building available to the public. These minimum requirements include: one accessible route from site arrival to an accessible entrance of the building, one accessible toilet room, access to the public spaces on the entrance level and elsewhere where practical, and displays and written information for a seated person(in wheelchair).9 These again, are the minimum standards and should be exceeded wherever possible, the goal being to match the building code for new construction while preserving the historic integrity of the building in question. Casa de Rosas underwent ADA Compatibility in 1995 when the major systems of the building were rehabilitated. Because the loss of historic fabric would 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have been too great to make the entire site and all buildings, all floors accessible, interventions were taken to minimize effects on the site and buildings (see Chapter 2, Existing Conditions). In studying the building for the potential of opening it up to the public, other issues of accessibility were considered and the site and buildings would be upgraded accordingly. The new ADA plan for the complex allows all public areas of the site to be accessible by placing all of these spaces on the ground floor. All new program spaces in the historic buildings are on the first floors and have accessible ramps leading from the entrances around the site. Restrooms on the first floor are also to be upgraded to be accessible for the public’s use. The new infill building will contain an elevator and will connect to Building B and C on the second floor making those floors accessible as well. To accommodate this upgrade, all rooms and bathrooms where possible will be accessible on the second floor of Building B and C. This second floor will continue to be private and secure for the residents only, but upgrading these floors will allow Sunshine Mission more flexibility in the future. The second and third floors of Building A will remain private and secure to residents only, accessible by stairs. 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 3.3 Diagram: ADA A ccess- Parking, Ramps, Elevator Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A factor to consider in any rehabilitation work is whether the work can be undone in the future with no loss of resource integrity. Throsby describes this issue of reversibility as the ‘precautionary principle’, when decisions that are made cause irreversible change. These changes must not be taken lightly he says, and an added duty of care must be imposed incase the change is found out to be misguided by future generations or technology.1 0 While change sometimes must be made in order to make the new program function, if the work that has to be done causes irreversible change, it may not be worth that program element in the building or that space. Though much of the interior of Casa de Rosas has been altered, either from past renovations or fire damage, and cannot be reversed, future work will be sensitive to the historic fabric that remains. To ensure this, rehabilitation is mainly proposed for those spaces that have already been altered. The office in Building A for example will be rehabilitated into classrooms (the historic use of the space), which will take out the office partitions, casework, etc which is not original. Though this is not a reconstruction of exactly what was there originally, it is a move to give the user an accurate idea of what went on in that wing of the building. The historic chapel will be preserved and used as a small performing arts space without having to install anything that would be permanent to continue to have that space as an important gathering space. The poor management and financial trouble the complex has been through the past fifty years has allowed the landscaping to suffer greatly. The early fires in the complex and the Hoover Boulevard widening project have also contributed to the 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. loss of original landscaping. The interesting part of this loss of historic fabric is that the name, Casa de Rosas was given to the building because of its original climbing roses in the landscape. The goal is to restore those elements of the landscape that are documented in images to the most accurate representation possible. Replanting what is recorded to have existed will be important, while preserving the existing trees on the site, which have remained despite the losses on the rest of the site. Paved paths will be reconstructed according to pictures from Casa de Rosas’ time as a Girls’ Collegiate School. The landscape plan after being implemented yields itself to the maintenance plan for the site. The maintenance plan will be the most important part of restoring the landscape to the original intent. Working from more data taken from site surveys and materials evaluations, the maintenance plan set up appropriate watering amounts and times for the landscaping that is close to the buildings. The maintenance plan will also protect the building in terms of the growing vines and roses that were originally planted to cover the buildings. With the exterior of the buildings deemed stable, cleaned and sealed to protect from the organic material, vines on the buildings will only be allowed in planned areas to monitor the invasiveness of the plants. Through this process it will be decided whether plants will be allowed to climb other parts of the buildings. 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SUSTAINABILITY The nature of preserving a building is essentially sustaining the original materials that are present within. Preservation “is defined as the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a building or structure, and the existing form and vegetative cover of a site. It may include initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well as ongoing maintenance of the historic building materials”1 1 according to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. Preservation is inherently a sustainable practice maintaining existing resources and their embodied energy. The sustainable goals of the Casa de Rosas site design study centered on taking advantage of the already existing qualities of the courtyard typology, as well as Sumner Hunt’s original design intent that was followed by the unknown architects of Building B and C. Along with reincorporating the existing sustainable ideals into the new building uses, new technological systems would be implemented to create a cohesive system that runs the building efficiently with the minimum amount of resources expended. Passive solar design, often meaning operable windows and solar orientation, in historic buildings is a design feature that makes them valuable to today’s sustainable practice. The windows in historic buildings are generally considered a character defining element and a critical design feature of the building. Casa de Rosas contains many types of original, significant fenestration systems. Windows are also a source of natural light in a preserved building just as they were originally. 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The use of operable windows increases ventilation, allowing building occupants to control the temperature to their comfort level and have views to the outdoors. Called passive cooling, new buildings are trying to emulate that courtyard typology that works so well to efficiently cool buildings. Passive cooling, works by creating opportunities for people in the building to control their own environment and be involved in the cooling practices by opening and closing the windows when needed. These buildings expect the occupants to play a role in the climate control system. The courtyard solution, pulling cool air from the outside through windows through the building into the courtyard and pushing the warm air up and out of the courtyard is called a chimney effect, described in the new office building by Weber + Thompson in Seattle, Washington. New buildings continue to be designed in the courtyard typology because of the sustainable and passive cooling strategies available easily within the design. A new office building under construction in Seattle, Washington is taking advantage of the benefits of a courtyard building. The building, designed by Weber + Thompson Architects will act like a chimney through its courtyard design; that is, “hot air will collect in the courtyard and rise, pulling air out of the building’s courtyard windows, and creating cross breezes inside.”1 2 The architects expect to have the occupants of the building participate in the cooling of the building by opening and closing windows throughout the day. This tactic has eliminated the requirement for air conditioning in the building. Other strategies used to control sun are horizontal louvers on the east and west sides of the building, a light colored roof that will not 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. absorb heat. These strategies are expected to use 30% less energy than similar office buildings running electric systems and chillers all summer.1 3 A preferred strategy in bringing new technology into a historic building is for the purpose of making the existing building function to its maximum potential. For example, occupancy and light sensors can be installed to adjust electrical lighting according to the need for light or the amount of available natural light and then dim or turn lights off as needed. Depending on the layout of a building, people may only move through certain spaces and therefore those spaces do not need to have systems running constantly in them. This option also preserves those historic, but working systems in a building by not overworking them. This strategy along with the above passive solar design can create a comfortable temperature in a historic building without affecting the historic fabric. ECONOMICS The significance of the Casa de Rosas warrants the cost of preservation. Moving beyond this primary reasoning, the cost to maintain the buildings at this point is far less than continuing to let the spaces deteriorate and trying to preserve them later. In an address given at the Restoration & Renovation Conference in Washington DC in 2001 by Donovan Rykema, a nationally known consultant on historic preservation economics, eight ways preservation is an economic generator are discussed. These are jobs, household income, heritage tourism, small business 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. incubation, downtown revitalization, small town revitalization, neighborhood stability, and neighborhood diversity.1 4 Of these eight, the one that is the ideal result from the preservation of Casa de Rosas is neighborhood stability. Rykema says that “historic districts have become the strategy to stabilize and reinvigorate urban neighborhoods.”1 5 Examples used to demonstrate this point are across the country and often through historic preservation the neighborhood takes on a whole new life. For example, in Oklahoma City, an almost vacant neighborhood ten years ago used a preservation strategy, and today is growing and alive. In Kansas City, Missouri, historic districts are growing when the overall population of the city is declining.1 6 Across the country warehouses are being rehabilitated and used for housing and creating entire new neighborhoods from what was an old industrial area of a city. The point is that none of these areas are expensive or famous; they are normal, middle class neighborhoods where the same neighborhood stabilization is coming from historic preservation. North University Park has seen the same type of stabilization the past twenty five years from the preservation of historic homes and commercial buildings in the area, and the goal there now is to help the revitalize the community spaces of the neighborhood to not just stabilize the neighborhood, but to see it prosper. Square footage costs can determine the size and type of building an owner can sometimes afford to build. New construction costs can be out of reach simply because of the escalating material costs. Rehabilitation or preservation per square i n foot can be less than half of that of new construction. With the structural systems 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and exterior facades existing, the most expensive aspects of a building are already accounted for. Labor costs tend to stay more balanced, while materials costs are increasing rapidly with no predictable pattern. It is safer to plan the cost of labor for a preservation job rather than try to plan a budget around the materials cost of new construction. Other large costs in new construction are normally the property acquisition and the demolition of whatever was on the site previously. Rather than being primarily material resource based, labor makes preservation happen. These people often come from the local area where the buildings are being preserved. This impact of investing in the community through the redevelopment of a building, as well as providing jobs for the local economy can push a community towards financial freedom in a sense. Many preservation projects therefore have an educational component to train local craftsman so they can continue to work in the specialized field. Rehabilitating historic buildings, instead of demolishing and building new buildings on the site, is a better solution for economic purposes. Portions of rehabilitated structures can be completed and rented out while other parts of the site are still being worked on and completed. The opportunity to phase and plan what will be under construction when, allows the owner to have much more control over where the building can still be making money and charging rent while other parts are unavailable due to construction. Due to the layout of the buildings at Casa de Rosas, the complex can continue to function rather normally during construction. Also parts of the project can be 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. completed and opened to renters while the other parts are being completed. This phasing option can allow owner to begin taking or continue taking in money while they are under construction. 1 Sunshine Mission Mission Statement, http://www.sunshinemission.org/ 2 City o f LA General Plan Framework, 2-19-03 3 W. Brown Morton III and Gary L. Hume, The Secretary o f the Interior’ s Standards fo r Historic Preservation Projects, (Washington DC: US Dept o f the Interior, 1979), 2 Stephanos Polyzoides, Roger Sherwood, James Tice, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, 2nd Edition, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 3 5 Arrol Gellner and Douglas Keister, Red Tile Style, A m erica’ s Spanish Revival Architecture (N e w York: Penguin Putnam, 2002), 95 6 A.K. Smiley Public Library, “The History o f the Library,” 1996 7 Architectural Resources Group, “A.K. Smiley Library” 2003, 1 8 J. Kirk Irwin, Historic Preservation Handbook (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2003), 95 9 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), Minimum Requirements Summary Sheet J: Accessible Buildings, Checklist fo r Buildings and Facilities, October 1992 10 David Throsby, “Sustainability in the Conservation o f the Built Environment: An Economist’s Perspective,” M anaging Change: Sustainable Approached to the Conservation o f the Built Environment Philadelphia, April 2001, 64 1 1 Morton III, W. Brown and Gary L. Hume, The Secretary o f the Interior’ s Standards fo r Historic Preservation Projects. (Washington DC: US Dept o f the Interior, 1979), 2. 1 2 Tom Boyer, “Building to offer breath o f fresh air,” Seattle Times, September 27, 2005. 1 3 “Braving the Heat Without Air Conditioning, Weber + Thompson Designs a Green Building for the Future,” Seattle, June 22, 2005 1 4 Donovan D. Rypkema, “The Economic Power o f Restoration,” Restoration & Renovation Conference, Washington DC, delivered on January 15, 2001 1 5 Ibid. 1 6 Ibid. 1 7 Ruthann Lehrer, The Preservation Alternative: an Economic Analysis o f Urban Conservation with Case Studies from the Los Angeles Area, (Los Angeles: UCLA, 1980), 23 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 4-Proposed Design Buildings that outlast the generation that built them often do so because they are flexible enough to accommodate changes in use, or continue to provide a long term need, such as housing. While the implementation plan of preserving buildings will change from place to place depending on the needs of a particular community; whether recreational, social, gathering, health facilities, etc. many historic buildings are flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of uses through preservation and rehabilitation practice. Casa de Rosas has changed use many times, but the functions have always stayed in character with the type of space being filled. This has allowed the buildings to stay relatively unharmed through the process. So proposing a new design plan for the buildings of Sunshine Mission continues the use of the spaces in sensitive and practical ways. The best way to implement this design plan will be through a phased approach due to the nature of the site and activity within. Proposed Phasing Plan The creation of a phasing plan for Casa de Rosas took into account the current needs of the Mission and the expansion of the site over time. The master planning process of the site, as well as the building use assessment contributed to determining what is appropriate in the buildings and landscape. Though funding will play the ultimate role in defining how the project will proceed; the purpose of this phasing plan looked at what was the greatest benefit to the community while improving the Mission for the women. The major factor in determining the phasing 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the project and movement of public onto the site was determined by what the Mission facilities require to stay continually operational. If the project is phased correctly, the mission will be able to stay operational throughout the entire preservation/construction process. Phase One Phase one includes the rehabilitation of the historic chapel into a new multi purpose and performing arts room, the current computer room into new offices for the Mission staff, and upgrades of the ground floor restrooms for ADA accessibility for new public functions (ramps for site accessibility were added with the 1995 upgrades). Total square footage for Phase one is 3,438 sq. ft. Using the factor of $75/ square foot for rehabilitation work and $50/ square foot for preservation/stabilization work, this phase will cost $217, 850. Site upgrades would include paving the parking area and providing paved handicap access across site. The landscaping would be rehabilitated where possible and new landscaping would be installed at the north public courtyard, which is currently not programmed. Throughout the site, security measures would be added in the form of gates and fences that separate the street from the new public spaces on the property and then from the private living spaces for the women. The chapel is a primary part of the character of the buildings, and therefore the reuse program will take a secondary role after the preservation of the character defining features in the space. This historic main gathering space will continue to be 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a gathering space, retaining the historic intent and character of use and giving the community a sense of where the people of this community in generations past gathered as well. The ancillary spaces of the chapel wing will become a cyber cafe for the community. A grab and go style cafe, not requiring a kitchen would supply a small group of indoor tables and a large outdoor patio below the main portico extending from the building. Generated from the donated computers to the mission, the cyber cafe would bring much needed income to the mission as well as providing space for computer classes to take place for both the mission and the community. The office area of building A has already been altered from the original Froebel Institute interior, therefore creating a functioning and useable space while not taking any more historic fabric away is the main objective. The exterior facade and windows will not be altered, only the inside additions will be removed and replaced with room dividers that can also be removed without damaging the features of the interior that are original. Restrooms in Building C will be rehabilitated to be accessible for the public. These will service all the public spaces on the site and are central to the historic ballroom in Building C. No original fixtures remain in these restrooms, therefore allowing the space to be modified to meet ADA requirements with no lose of historic fabric. The current parking requirement is four spaces to accommodate the four SRO units added in 1995. These accessible SRO units were new rooms that had to be 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. added to meet ADA accessibility requirements. These rooms were able to be added to the ground floor which avoided the necessity of an elevator reaching the second or third floors. Casa de Rosas is considered an Existing Non Conforming Building to the parking requirements of the City of Los Angeles. This Non Conforming status will stay in affect for all square footage and program that is currently on the site as long as the mission stays with their current use. A new use or occupancy would require those program spaces to have parking provided for them as well, according to the current parking requirements at the time in the City. The purpose behind this law is to ensure that a site can handle the amount of people arriving by car and not stress surrounding parking spaces. 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HANDICAP SUEST ROOM NO SCALE Figure 4.1 Phase 1 Ground Floor Plan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. x MULTI PURPOSE ROOM KITCHEN/ COMPUTER SCALE Figure 4.2 Phase 1 Building A Preservation and Rehabilitation 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HANDICAP GUEST ROOM MISSION : OFFICES PANTRY OFFIC KTCHEN SERVERY DINING ROOM RECREATION -CENTER Figure 4.3 Phase 1 Building B Rehabilitation 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. STORAGE HANDICAP GUEST COMPUTER ROOM COMPUTER ROOM/ MULTI PURPOSE SPACE ° [ A l s S l c J w * GUEST ROOM COMMUNITY CENTER RECEPTION IANDICAP GUEST ROOM),/ BLDG COMMUNITY OFFICE 16* a ' o SCALE Figure 4.4 Phase 1 Landscape and Security Rehabilitation 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MULTI , PURPOSE, V ROOM Figure 4.5 Phase 1 Parking Area 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PUBLIC OURTYARCi BLDG CLASSROOM STORAGE CLASSROOM PUBLI' STORAGE O D U A K inir'A D a' 1 6 * e 32* SCALE Figure 4.6 Phase 1 Public Accessible Restrooms Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Phase Two The second phase of the design on the site would move the Sunshine Mission offices to their new location- more central to the women they serve and away from the new public spaces. This would leave the entry area of Building A to be rehabilitated and create a more public area with a new community office and space from which to implement the community outreach programs. Building A would continue to be the main entrance for women entering the Mission or SRO Hotel as first time guests with a separate reception space that would take them straight into the private spaces of Sunshine Mission. Total square footage for Phase two is 4,195 sq. ft. Using the factor of $75/ square foot for rehabilitation work and $50/ square foot for preservation/stabilization work, this phase will cost $251,000. Phase two would also include preserving the main spaces of building C; including the ballroom and surrounding alcoves and meeting room. These public spaces will be preserved as accurately as possible for the community to be able to trace the history of this site as it was experienced from USO entertainment and girls’ collegiate gatherings. The ballroom is a primary part of the character of the building, and therefore the reuse program will take a secondary role after the preservation of the character defining features. These gathering spaces will be used again as gathering spaces, as opposed to their current function as storage rooms. These large spaces already meet exiting requirements and fire/life safety requirements can be added to the double height space ceiling without deterring from the character of the space. The spaces surrounding the main ballroom will become support spaces for 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the larger space, and serve as rooms for public and private gathering. The meeting rooms and kitchen can be scheduled to be open to the public, and also closed off for events, meetings, or other gatherings just for the Sunshine Mission women. 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NO SCALE Figure 4.7 Phase 2 Ground Floor Plan 4- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D L .U U x / COMPUTER ' / / . m m / / c o m m u n ity . /.CENTER / RECEPTION. > COMMUNITY, /O P F iC E ;, /'/ / ' / IHELTER Figure 4.8 Phase 2 Building A Rehabilitation 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PUBLJp [STRUMS MEETING ROOM HANDICAP GUEST ALCOVE BALLROOM HANDlcJ^ GUEST ROOM KITCHEN ANDICAP GUEST ROOMV BLDG ALCOVE LIBRARY SCALE Figure 4.9 Phase 2 Building C Preservation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Phase Three A The third phase of the rehabilitation of the site is the demolition of Building D. Total square footage for Building D is 1,625 sq. ft. Using the factor of $50/ square foot for demolition work next to a historic building; this phase will cost $81,250. This non contributing structure on the north side of the site falls outside of the period of significance and only provides two classrooms for the mission on a single story. The building would be demolished to make room for a larger building that will use the space more efficiently. Phase Three B Phase Three B would be a new building on the northeast comer of the site where Building D was demolished. This new building would complete the courtyard scheme of the historic buildings. The new building would also provide expanded shelter rooms for the mission as well as providing accessible access to the second floor of Buildings B and C. “.. .the integration of new objects into an existing urban context can ensure the viability of both new constmct and old city fabric.”1 Completing the courtyard scheme of buildings at Casa de Rosas would be a main design goal of any new construction. This new constmction would tie all the buildings to the same typology, with the new building using the historic buildings as precedents in terms of adaptable, climate appropriate architecture for Los Angeles. Total square footage for Phase 3B is 3,505 sq. ft. Using the factor of $200/ square foot for new construction, this phase will cost $297,925. 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A new building on the site today would not be allowed by the current codes in terms of the parking required by any new program the building would provide. Due to the nature of the site and the current layout of the existing buildings, underground parking is not a feasible option, nor is on grade parking a desirable option. Either of these options would ruin the outdoor courtyards and historic integrity of the landscape. In lieu of this reality that current code would not allow this new addition, the benefits of this new building outweigh the code requirements and will be argued to serve as a precedent of how this type of addition might be possible within urban neighborhoods that lack open space to fulfill parking requirements. This new building would be an excellent addition to further the mission statement of Casa de Rosas serving the women’s community of Los Angeles. Therefore, new code analyses would be required to make the new building possible. Taking the Los Angeles General framework Plan which said that the Hoover Corridor to be a pedestrian area only servicing locals, as well as the reality that the women at the shelter and low income housing do not have vehicles of their own; there is no reason to rule out a new building with new program to service the community because of not being able to comply with the parking requirement. This new building also brings more of the building up to ADA Code by providing an elevator which, although not central to the entire site, can service the second floor of all the buildings except for A. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The new building would function to provide the resources that the mission currently lacks, which is more room for emergency shelter beds. The mission turns down approximately 10 women per night. The new building would make up this 10 bed ratio and add three beds. The first floor has two classrooms which replace the two that would be lost with the demolition of building D. The new building also provides a large covered outdoor space that could be used as a classroom for various activities. The second floor of the new building also has 4 individual units to expand the SRO Hotel, the only part of the Sunshine Mission which generates revenue. 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pBTffBTR : f r = i l EE Eliu = U E E E E f f t T T H I E E NO SCALE Figure 4.10 Phase 3a Building D Demolition 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ADAMS BOULEVARD NO SCALE Figure 4.11 Phase 3b New Building at Northeast Corner-Ground Floor Site Plan 4- 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 R 0 .CC □ j q S □ O Q NO SCALE Figure 4.12 Phase 3b New Building at Northeast Comer-Second Floor Site Plan 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OVERFLOW SHELTER ROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM PUBLJP c i IlESTRdOMS MEETING ROOM O D ■ 0 0 8' 32' 16’ 0 SCALE Figure 4.13 Phase 3b N ew Building at Northeast Comer- Ground Floor Plan 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SRO UNIT SRO UNIT SRO UNIT SRO UNIT SHELTER ROOM SHELTER ROOM a' is' 32' SCALE nsnm Figure 4.14 Phase 3b N ew Building at Northeast Comer- Second Floor Plan 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Phase Four The master plan for the mission calls for a separate addition just to the south of the historic buildings and site. Realizing the need in Los Angeles for women’s missions is great and the need is growing, as well as the need in the North University Park community for new recreational and gathering facilities, this new facility would expand Sunshine Mission’s services. This new building would be an extension of the mission’s program and a new wellness center for the mission and the local community. The new complex would provide underground parking below two public courtyards surrounded by three and four stories of classrooms and facilities for the residents and visitors. Total square footage for the proposed expansion is 24,750 sq ft. New architecture can leam from historic buildings that were built prior to the technology used today. New buildings can leam from the sustainable principles that were used as the norm in buildings of the past, as well as take advantage of these buildings as precedents for site design strategies, interaction with the community, public space and style. The new building would continue the courtyard typology of the historic buildings and follow the urban gestures and interaction with the street to create a cohesive complex along Hoover Boulevard. This new building would also continue to build the node along Hoover at Adams Boulevard by becoming the cultural center of the Boulevard by providing gallery space in the public lobby/entry for local artists and classes taught by local artists. 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Other program in the building would replace what the current facility is being used for; the historic chapel in Building A is currently used as a thrift store open only to the women, but the new location would give the store enough room to be able to open to the community and generate more revenue. Currently on the site of this proposed addition is a Christian Science Reading Room, this building would be demolished and a storefront space would be included in the new building to allow that function to continue operating close to the church it is associated with. Surrounding the ground floor courtyard are classrooms for arts, training, cooking, and rentable rooms for other community groups. The community center also has two counseling rooms and a job training room. The second floor of the new facility would be a Wellness Center for the community. This center has a fitness center, an aerobics room, a yoga studio and a workout room as well as locker rooms for men and women. There is also an outdoor exercise area that overlooks the public courtyard below. The third and forth floors house the SRO Hotel for the women of the Sunshine Mission. There are 48 SRO rooms that can adapt to house twice as many shelter beds if necessary. The women have their own private courtyard on the third floor with a two story lounge enclosing the exterior room from Hoover Boulevard. The third floor also has several outdoor patios that overlook other areas of the center and the street below. This opportunity for the women to observe the community without having to engage into those relationships is a step towards healthy recovery and reentry into society. 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This design study covers any type of intervention Sunshine Mission should like to make on their site. From stabilization and preservation measures for their historic buildings to the opportunity for a new expansion of their services this phased plan will allow the Mission to evaluate their needs as they move into the future; and based on resources and the continued success of their programs can implement that which they see most beneficial in their own time. 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. L - ia m a ! T|Y3V<iVryTN4! I D G Q B T illK D FiXXjR Program Key 1 Entry, Reception, Exhibits 2 Multi Purpose Classroom 3 Multi Purpose Arts Room 4 Multi Purpose Kitchen 5 Thrift Store 6 Storage 7 Christian Science Reading Room 8 Offices * 9 Job TrainingRoom 10 CounselingXenter 11 Mechanical & Electrical Room 12 Yoga Studio 13 Aerobics Room 14 Workout Room K X JK T H FLOOR 15 Fitness Center 16 Fitness Lobby 17 Mens Locker Room 18 Womens Locker Room 19 Womens Music Room 20 Womens Common Room 21 Womens Restrooms 22 Womens SRO Units Figure 4.15 Phase 4 Plans- Expansion South o f Site *4- 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4.16 Phase 4 Hoover Boulevard Elevation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 Figure 4.17 Site Plan Phases 1-4 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Stephanos Polyzoides, Roger Sherwood, James Tice, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, 2n d Edition, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 5- Conclusion The significance and worth of Casa de Rosas spans many arenas of interest. The architecture-materials, design, style exploration, architect, events, and people that have touched this place and are associated with it prove the worth of preserving this complex. Within the City of Los Angeles and the southern California region, Casa de Rosas is a precedent for courtyard buildings. The architecture is significant for Hunt’s exploration of the mission style in searching for a regional style for southern California. The history the building has within North University Park also makes it a vital part of that community. Redeveloping this complex rather than rebuilding from the ground up will maintain the historic fabric for the community to be proud of and continue to give the community an identity. Preserving Casa de Rosas and opening it to the local residents will only continue to strengthen the Hoover Corridor and provide more amenities in the form of gathering and classroom spaces, and eventually more services including a wellness center. These benefits make Casa de Rosas a viable part of the restoration of North University Park. Studying the Hoover Corridor shows that there is a need in this area for indoor gathering space and classrooms that the community can use for celebrations, study, and interaction. Becoming the connecting node between the University Village to the south and the Victorian Village to the north, this new cultural and community center will prosper. 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This site also provides many opportunities for sustainable practices to be utilized which were originally planned into the site and buildings. These passive strategies will continue and will serve as a precedent for the future buildings on this site and across the region. Part of sustaining the site will be the upkeep of the landscape. The main need is a maintenance plan for outlining the care on the site for each specific condition. This will give the owner a directive as to how to care for the new and historic foliage and other site elements. Economically, the development of this historic building will be a catalyst for redevelopment of more buildings, both historic and new construction. Through the use of local labor the community will gain skills for future work in the city as well as economically boost the community during the work. The Sunshine Center will provide many jobs for the local community and give the Sunshine Mission a larger operating budget with the new finances coming in from users. This thesis has taken the benefits already associated with historic preservation and created a specific plan for Casa de Rosas in Los Angeles. Recognized is the fact that historic buildings are good for the community they are in; they provide functional program space as well as a tangible piece of community history. Beyond this, Casa de Rosas shows that sustaining the character defining features is what makes this place more special than a new building. Through the reuse of historic spaces and allowing people to again gather on the historic site, the neighborhood is stabilized and prospers both economically and civically. 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This project expands Casa de Rosas from a closed site of preserved living quarters, but deteriorating public spaces and landscape, for women who are recovering from difficult experience to a fully preserved site with spaces open to the local residents and expanded services for the women seeking refuge at the Sunshine Mission. This proposal also suggests the possibility of an expansion on and adjacent to the site. 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bibliography Architectural Resources Group, “A.K. Smiley Library” 2003. A.K. Smiley Public Library. “The History of the Library”. 1996. Bever, Thomas D. The Economic Benefits o f Historic Preservation. Washington DC: Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, US Department of the Interior. May 1978. Blumenson, John J.-G. Identifying American Architecture 2n d Edition. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1981. Boyer, Tom. “Building to offer breath of fresh air.” Seattle Times, September 27, 2005. Cullum, Paul. “A Considerable Town Recovery: Pins and Needles”. LA Weekly. July 26-August 1, 2002. Fertik, Irene. “24-Theater of the Absorbed”. USC Trojan Family Magazine. June 1, 1999. Furqueron, Mark. Westways Magazine http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/lahist.html Fitch, James Marston. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management o f the Built World. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1982. Fitch, James Marston and William Bobenhausen. “Toward Sustainability’M?wen'ca« Building, The Environmental Forces That Shape It. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Froebel Foundation, The. www.froebel.com/about-ffoeberl.htm. 2005. Galpin, Kate Tupper. “Our Schools”, Land o f Sunshine. Sept. 1895. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Layton: Gibbs Smith, 2003. Gellner, Arrol and Douglas Keister. Red Tile Style, America’ s Spanish Revival Architecture. New York: Penguin Putnam, 2002. Glenn, Marsha. Historic Preservation: A Handbook fo r Architecture Students. Washington D.C.: ALA. 1974. 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hunt, Sumner P. “Architecture”. Los Angeles Times. January 1, 1897. 13. Irwin, J. Kirk. Historic Preservation Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2003. Knight, Stephen. “Getty Grant Request Application for Casa de Rosas, Inc’s Ballroom Rehabilitation Project”. 2003. Lehrer, Ruthann. The Preservation Alternative: an Economic Analysis o f Urban Conservation with Case Studies from the Los Angeles Area. Los Angeles: UCLA, 1980. Lilley, Irene M. Friedrich Froebel. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Low, Setha M. “Social Sustainability: People, History, and Values”. Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation o f the Built Environment. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust. 2003. McNeill, Morris. Historic Cultural Monuments. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 1990. McKnight, Stephen. “Casa de Rosas.” Los Angeles, 2001. Minimum Requirements Summary Sheet J: Accessible Buildings, Checklist for Buildings and Facilities. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). October 1992 Morton III, W. Brown and Gary L. Hume. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards fo r Historic Preservation Projects. Washington DC: US Dept of the Interior, 1979. Owen, Tom. Preliminary Report on the Restoration o f the Sunshine Mission. Los Angeles: LA Community Design Center, 1979. Parsons, Alice and Jeanne Dennen. Girls ’ Collegiate School, Thirty-First Year. Los Angeles: Girls’ Collegiate School, 1923. Phillips, Mary Alice. Los Angeles, a Guidebook. Los Angeles, 1907. Polyzoides, Stephanos, Roger Sherwood, James Tice. Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, 2n d Edition. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992. Rasmussen, Cecilia. “Mission Maintains Its Efforts to Educate Women." Los Angeles Times. May 25, 1993. 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rypkema, Donovan D. “The Economic Power of Restoration”. Restoration & Renovation Conference, Washington DC. Delivered on January 15, 2001. Saldana, Michael. Historic-Cultural Monument Declaration. Los Angeles: Old Time Faith, Inc. January 12, 1980. Steven B. Sample. “Building a Great History.” University o f Southern California Glimpses o f History 1880-1995. Los Angeles: USC. April 1995. Severance, Caroline M. “A Model School”, Land o f Sunshine. Sept. 1895. Stetson, Charlotte Perkins. “Beauty as an Educator”, Land o f Sunshine. Sept. 1895. Sullivan, Meg. “Architecture, Arts Students Create Designs to Nurture a Neighborhood. USC Chronicle. January 24, 2000. Throsby, David. “Sustainability in the Conservation of the Built Environment: An Economist’s Perspective.” Managing Change: Sustainable Approached to the Conservation o f the Built Environment. Philadelphia, April 2001. Tucker, Carol. “Neighborhood Theater to Thrive”. USC Chronicle. October 28, 1996. Tucker, Carol. “One Woman’s Vision Can Make a Real Difference”. USC Chronicle. September 30,1996. Tucker, Carol. “The Gems Right Next Door”. USC Chronicle. September 30, 1996. Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000. Upton, Dell. Architecture in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Weitze, Karen. California’ s Mission Revival. Los Angeles: Hennessey & Ingalls, 1984. Weitze, Karen. “Sumner P. Hunt”.pp. 181-190. Ed. Robert Winter. Toward A Simpler Way o f Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .V * . * I C l r Appendix A Sanborn Insurance Map #651 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 8 8 8 < £ . U ( 0 • e 01 a ) V) o _ i o & 02 ® « ? > - 3 Q „ < 3 3 ? O ^ i A < 0 < c 3 o O f P * f Appendix B County o f Los Angeles Assessor Map 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F O R KIEV. ASSMT. S E C : 32- 7 & 8 P.AtiMNG City o f Los A ngeles D epartm ent o f City Planning 31.«2A *20C S PARCEL PROFILE REPORT P R O PER TY A DO RES g E g aS C D S HOOVER S T 1CC8 'A ,» D W S B J.'D Z IP CD O E4 3 0 0 3 7 R E C E N T A C T IU irf N one OFC-tsas-si&GFe D P C --33E-44. 7 -G PC O P C -*322-5 IE-6 P O RD -1 ^ 6 3 2 O H D -1S71.21-SA S74 3 R D -1S2122 ZA-5S 21 ism Z A -1131S A d d r a ttlL e o a t In ltirm a ito n P N lu m b e r : A rea iC a c J a r e d : T a t a * E ra U ie's G rd : A ss e s s o r = a r :e h u - n t e r T a c t M ap ReAerence: B o er. Lae A rs .jjrt C U BeA erense;: J u itB H o tk w l In fo rm atio n C orem »rlty B a n *rea: A rea R anrfeiu O or-m rsa cn N e g n tx rh a o a C o lo c I: C o i r d i C istd c i C e n s js T r e c t* LACB5 DSHD: Office! B e ltin g P e im t W o: W m w Ih q a n d Z o n ln a Info rm atio n S pecial Noses: Z c n n g Z c n n g sn fcrw atcn ;Z I: G en eral Plan Land u * e . S p e d f c P a n .Area: H staffe P re s e r * a lc n O .e i a v z o n e H lsta ic a i C ultural M o n u m en t M is A ct C o ntract N j - o e r P O O - P e a e s m a n O renS ed O stn cls CO O - G o r-n * .rlv D esign C v e ra ,: S tre e ts c a c e : S g n District: •A caplve R e i.se in c e n i- e A rea: 33% D ensity a c ru s : C R A - C o m n jr tty R e d e .e c a r e - s A g -rc y ‘ 23A3 5 * 122 • * 7 33 € ISC n P A S E S 3A - G R 0 6 7 3123331222 HANCOCKS 5 LRV EY M R 2 - ' 3 i. - 11 2 2 F R 3 K a n e S cu lh L c s A ngeles S cu m l c s A rg e le s E r p a w e n r e r t C o rg re s s ISfcrth A rea CD 3 - B ernard C. P a r ts 2247.30 L as A ngeles V el-o V e * h a n e P ?R A -1 -0 Z1-" 133 H oover R eafcvefoprpert f r o lK t ;E * o a rslo r A rea 2 : Zl-2123 M d -A ia re d a C o ~ lecr S cale E m e ip r s e Z o re Low M e c tjr- u R esid e n t a S o v lh C e n ta l A icancl S a e s N one LA-241: S a rs M n e M s s c n L S O ID X E T S : C a s a c e R o sas N o n e N one S a n e S o S o S a n e B igtote H oover R e d e v e lo o rre '* P roject I 'E ip a r s a n A rea 2 ; S o S o VAR h o C e n ta l C R y P a rto n j CflMrJtawnPancng: B Ja(rg Jne: S 3Q FI S cn o o Z o n e Additional W larmaticr A rp o d H arare: h o n e C o astal Z o re : h o n e F arm a r c : A rea m e M ap p m v ery High Fire H asan s Seveitry Z ane: S o F ire District No. 1 : h a F ire District No. 2 : h o F lood Z o n e: h o n e B S K d o u s W a sre > a c - d e r Z s r e P ro p erties: h o M e d ia n : H azard S te : M e d ia te Z o n e Hlgn A t-d V e lo c fj A rH s: h o H its d e G a c d n g : h o |" | AAets h o n e Appendix C City o f Los Angeles Parcel Profile Report Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. AqJsNPIoto Fau t Za,»: CKtarce la Neares: -auR Lardside: Lquetoctor: Eoofw rna Dentatanmertt A raac Bysness Irqpiwefrtert Ds-rat Federal Empoarermeni Z c m c : Rene** Oarm Ln^: Ret-talzallon Zore: Stale sroaiprae Zare: - aige»d *4^t»rnood rflafl.e: Assessor Information Assessor Farce Nti'rtte-: P-sfce Aea ’ ^frartrnatet: Lse Coce: Byldirg Das* Assessed Lard Va.: Assessed lTrc*em erl va vear6 t.lt Leal O arer Charge L ailSaeA m oyrt Number of L nte Number of Bed reams Numte- of Baltm»f~5: B.l d rg Square Footage Ta«H*eArea: Deed BeflerefKe Nc.: Na 6.5S 44 -2 ik * n > N a Na Naoe None No CetttalCtty M d-Aaneda Condor State Brtenrtse Zcre Naae £12233ia2i 29*35 1 ISC I t 71CC - Cnyici CK S21*.SSS f ; e »as K •9 IS ■9E- C K C 55 *3 C C G 2 - 2 1 0 ISC I t 3* ‘1 1 6 Appendix C City o f Los Angeles Parcel Profile Report Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CASE SUMMARIES NtAi rAr-rnlert P a r Cam q.irirtt*«K * *4i*ifcmiJ Itur lit t'hmti*ia L:«titilnBlf't l!fc t" C ltt r i*Ou-y dpilan -' 'IJ ! i; | UatbaUm Cee» Number CPO-1 SS6-S C '3-GPC Required M tk m ltl: GFC-GEN=R*L PLANraOMNa CONSISTENCY l Aa23i;i P re se t O gcanpU cr^): GENERA- P.A H 20N N G CONS STENCY P T O P .W C m Number CPC-1 S€fr447-GPC Required A M bnlti: GPC-GEAERAL PLANZOMNG CCNS4S— NCY IA3233I P rc |e « OgccrlpttCMtt: PLAN .AND 2CNE CONSISTENCY - SOUTH CENTRA- LOS .ANGERS HERB G-ABCOWi Csc« Number CPC-1SE3-5M-SP Required M U anKi: SP-SPECi-C P.A N .;+ A LeN D fW era: Prq)60!DeewlpU «•(*;■: SPEC PC PLN QRD =CR NTSRM COMO Ti2«VA_USE *R=R A FOR ESTABLISHMENTS FOR "HE SALE O - ALODHD. W-ICH ARE GENERALLY LOCATED N T-E SOUTH 'CENTRAL .AREA OF TFE CfTY SEE GOtERA. COMMENTS CONTNUATQN OF CRG43-SK. SEE GENERAL COMMENTS =OR CONTNUATON. OATA NOT AVAILABLE CASE-4BS5 CA5E--EU ORC- " i s s : CRC-'B7'21-SA’ r 7 i O R C -S i‘23 ZA-3s*A 2A-11313 Appendix C City o f Los Angeles Parcel Profile Report Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. n » r> A rfm rtii- n ; W orbs . U Appendix D Hoover Boulevard Widening, Ground Floor 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ? .T .* r , -r, goH T ^ A C T ps al/g.t L -o jjv/y- b l O G b Ej l d D ipc-i. A T A > r EXISTING SECOND STOhY PLAN \ ^ C A IX • l"= 40.0* DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUREAU OF R IG H T OF W A Y A N D LA N D CITY OF LOS ANGELES M o o v r. fs < ?Th ,E .r:r — 6c-.T\v£.t-N A vAAa S OOUlGVAKC a. K o 3 2 M O vTr-.r- KT". Appendix D Hoover Boulevard Widening, Second Floor 111 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. RD G - A 5LQC7.- ■fcLOG.-C -£>LDGrD P C . - U l . V - ' EXISTING T 14U S D STONY PLAN \ £ C A L t ■ l" - - 4 0 “ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUREAU OF R IG H T OF W A Y A N D L A N D O T V OF LOS ANGELES M C O V E h H K l FT - E M : TW PXH /A O T v N \ -> b C u L t Y A P i O O Z N io S t pen e r. Appendix D Hoover Boulevard Widening, Third Floor 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Building A East Elevation Building A W est Elevation Building C(left) North Elevation, Building A(right) North Elevation Building A South Elevation Building A West, South Elevation Appendix E Existing Elevations M 2A Architects Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. J Z L Building B East Elevation U Building B South Elevation Building B West Elevation Appendix E Existing Elevations M 2A Architects 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Building B East Elevation Building C(left) East Elevation, Building D(right) East Elevation TEETCHIMlBEnSlIS EH Building C(left) North Elevation, Building C(right) South Elevation 0 0 1 3 f j p f j 0 Building C West Elevation Appendix E Existing Elevations M 2A Architects 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Holiday Bowl and the problem of intangible cultural significance: A historic preservation case study

PDF

Planning for preservation: Exploring the designation of historic districts in Monrovia, California

PDF

The Freeman House: A case for the expansion of significance

PDF

Preserving modernist architecture

PDF

Constructions of Americanism: Three case studies

PDF

Thermal behavior of atria: a comparative study between measured data and a computational fluid dynamics model

PDF

BeTwinned.com: An online magazine for parents of twins and multiples

PDF

Color and daylighting: Towards a theory of bounced color and dynamic daylighting

PDF

Aging in a continuing care retirement environment: A case study of Villa Gardens retirement community

PDF

Bracing systems for tall buildings: A comparative study

PDF

Geology and structural evolution of the southern Shadow Mountains, San Bernardino County, California

PDF

A study of Kelley's covariation model

PDF

After the Fire, A Still Small Voice: A set of four songs for soprano and chamber ensemble

PDF

Variable reverberation in performance spaces: Passive and active acoustic systems

PDF

A case study comparing measured and simulated acoustical environments: Acoustical improvements of Verle Annis Gallery

PDF

Eccentric braced frames: A new approach in steel and concrete

PDF

Individual and parental influences on children's coping responses

PDF

Computer aided design and manufacture of membrane structures Fab-CAD

PDF

A method for glare analysis

PDF

An artist's response to...

Asset Metadata

Creator Gates, Alice Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Community redevelopment through historic preservation: A case study of Casa de Rosas

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Historic Preservation

Degree Program Historic Preservation

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Architecture,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-52430

Unique identifier UC11328304

Identifier 1437823.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-52430 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1437823.pdf

Dmrecord 52430

Document Type Thesis

Rights Gates, Alice Elizabeth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA