University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Citius, altius, fortius: filling a void in the identification and designation of historic venues from the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics

(USC Thesis Other)

Citius, altius, fortius: filling a void in the identification and designation of historic venues from the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS: FILLING A VOID IN THE IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC VENUES FROM THE 1932 LOS ANGELES OLYMPICS by Ivy Marie Amable ! ""! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly indebted to a number of people for their help and support during the research and writing of this thesis. Innumerable thanks go to the members of my thesis committee, Peyton Hall, Jay Platt, and Trudi Sandmeier, all of whom displayed profound patience and reassurance through my many impediments. Jay and Peyton eased the research and writing process with ample insight and direction. Trudi provided a beacon of light to follow when I strayed off course, as well as successfully reigning in my verbiage sprinkled throughout numerous drafts. Another thank you goes to Phil Gruen, my favorite architecture professor from my undergraduate studies at Washington State University. His passion for architecture history is infectious, and it was he who coaxed me into following the path towards preservation. Thanks goes to a fellow classmate, Sian Winship, for inviting me to a SAH/SCC event last fall at the LA84 Foundation. She was kind enough to introduce me to Wayne Wilson, the Vice-President of Education Services within the LA84 Foundation, as well as Cynthia Exum, a fellow researcher working on an Arcadia Book about the Olympic Village in Baldwin Hills. Special thanks go to the library staff at the Ziffren Sports Resource Center, Shirley Ito and Michael Salmon. They provided me with the stepping-stones early in my research. Thanks also goes to the wonderful librarians at the Felipe ! """! de Neve Branch Library; they were generous enough to let me re-checkout the 800-paged Official 1932 Olympic Report more times than I am sure was allowed. Another thank you goes to Morgan Yates at Westways magazine for helping me track down a particular article regarding the Olympic Village. I am also so very thankful for the staff and officers at the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club in Elysian Park. Ruben Crane, Helga Ibarra and Chris Carson provided so much information and assistance in allowing me access to the Police Academy. Most importantly, never ending thanks go to my parents, Nila and Ernie Amable, who have endured too long and provided so much for the perpetual student that is their middle child. Last but not least, a final thank you goes to Travis, who bore the brunt of stressed-out Ivy in her entirety, and for reminding me to just breathe. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "#! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii List of Figures vi Abbreviations vii Abstract viii Introduction 1 Chapter 1: The Olympic Ideal 4 Introduction 4 Uncertainty and the Great Depression 7 The Mega-Event Strategy 8 National and City Identity 10 Conclusion 11 Chapter 2: Planning and Development 14 Introduction 14 In Lieu of a World’s Fair 17 Promotion of Place 22 Mega-Events Over Time 24 Conclusion 25 Chapter 3: Architectural Imprint 28 Introduction 28 Geographic Boundaries 28 Venues and Facilities 29 Existing Sites and Venues 30 Purpose Built Sites and Venues 31 Non-Extant Sites 42 Women’s Housing: Chapman Park Hotel 44 Men’s Housing: Olympic Village 46 A Product of its Time 48 Conclusion 50 Chapter 4: Building Assessment 55 Introduction 55 Previous Surveys and Designations 55 Potential Designation Sites 56 Criteria for Evaluation 57 ! #! Historic Integrity 58 Summary of Historic Resource Findings 61 Conclusion 73 Chapter 5: Conclusion 77 A Question of Integrity 77 Alternatives to Landmark Designation 78 Bibliography 82 Appendices 88 Appendix A: Map of Host Cities prior to 1932 88 Appendix B: Olympic Infographic 89 Appendix C: Map of Olympic Venues 90 Appendix D: Additional Images of Grand Olympic Auditorium 91 Appendix E: Additional Images of Los Angeles Police Academy 92 Appendix F: Additional Images of Memorial Gateway 93 Appendix G: Building Assessment 94 Appendix H: Venue Attributes 95 ! #"! LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: California Tower, Balboa Park 19 Figure 2: Palace of Fine Arts 21 Figure 3: Helms Bakery 25 Figure 4: Olympic Stadium 33 Figure 5: State Armory Building 34 Figure 6: Grand Olympic Auditorium 35 Figure 7: Rose Bowl Velodrome 36 Figure 8: Los Angeles Police Academy Shooting Range 37 Figure 9: Riviera Country Club 38 Figure 10: Long Beach Marine Stadium 39 Figure 11: Swimming Stadium 40 Figure 12: Memorial Gateway 41 Figure 13: Chapman Park Hotel 44 Figure 14: Olympic Village Composite 47 Figure 15: Olympic Village Cottages 49 Figure 16: Olympic Cottage at Olvera Street 51 Figure 17: Grand Olympic Auditorium 67 Figure 18: Los Angeles Police Academy Shooting Range 72 Figure 19: Memorial Gateway 76 ! #""! ABBREVIATIONS CFA California Fiestas Association CDA Community Development Association IOC International Olympic Committee LAOOC Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee LAPD Los Angeles Police Department LAPRAAC Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club NRHP National Register of Historic Places NHL National Historic Landmark CRHR California Register of Historical Resources LA HCM Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument SHPO State Historic Preservation Office APE Area of Potential Effects ! #"""! ABSTRACT For the thousands of people who reside in and around Los Angeles, or those who visit the Southland as tourists, it is unlikely that many – if any – are aware of the legacy of the 1932 Olympic Games. After a formidable bidding and planning process lasting nearly a decade, the development and execution of the Games of the Xth Olympiad were ultimately successful and provided the general framework for Olympic successors. Through the direct and indirect legacy of these Games, many symbols representing the Angeleno way of life were born. This thesis will not focus on the planning and development processes of the 1932 Olympics, nor will it revolve around the Games’ athletic achievements or micro- politics; those chapters have already been written. The following pages will explore the role of the venues used in the Games, their stories, and their significance. This thesis will review the architectural legacy of the 1932 Olympics, ranging from the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in Exposition Park, to the boxing Mecca-turned-Korean-church on Grand Avenue, to the vanishing traces of the very first Olympic Village in Baldwin Hills. This study will identify the sites and structures used during the Xth Olympiad, both extant and lost. To this day, of the sites associated with the 1932 Games – the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena - are designated as a local, state or national landmark. Through extensive research and site visits, this thesis will attempt to help to fill the evident void in the awareness of temporal, yet ! "$! historical places and spaces, and help towards their designation and commemoration. ! %! INTRODUCTION The story of 1932 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, like the city itself, is unique and intricate. The Games of the Xth Olympiad have a complex legacy in Los Angeles history. Through an extensive search of historic articles and memorabilia, the subsequent pages elaborate on the influential elements of place making, place promotion, and place identity. It provides the groundwork for further research by connecting significant sites together and exploring their overall importance as one of the layers in the history of the City of Angels. Though crucial to the advancement of Los Angeles as an urban center in the early twentieth century, very little scholarly research has been conducted on the 1932 Olympics. This may be due in part to its more recent and profitable successor, the XXIIrd Olympic Games, hosted by the city in 1984. Eclipsed by the shadow of the prosperous 1984 Games, numerous venues associated with the 1932 Olympics have either been overlooked or erased. The Olympics left an esoteric imprint on the City of Los Angeles. The Games of the Xth Olympiad are a tangible legacy. Although venues associated with the 1932 Olympics may be obscure, they are extant. Of these temporal places, few have slowly fallen victim to modernization and ambiguity. ! &! The concern over how to recognize, distinguish and maintain these Olympic venues and sites around the city call forth three key questions: What sites and structures were utilized? Where are these sites and structures located? What can we do to conserve and commemorate these places? In an ever-evolving city like Los Angeles, where neighborhood dynamics are constantly changing, how can we – as residents, tourists, and historians – find an effective way to draw attention and appreciation for an often ignored, yet momentous occasion? Chapter 1 will establish the historical context of the 1932 Games within the broader framework of the Depression Era. It is during the course of this tumultuous and uncertain period in which the introduction of the Olympic Ideal and the phenomenon of the mega-event brings forth an unprecedented surge in both local and national identity. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the general overview of the 1932 Games. It begins with the daunting bidding process that began nearly a decade before the opening ceremony, and continues with the planning and development processes that significantly shaped the urban infrastructure of the city. The chapter closes with boosterism and marketing techniques applied to promoting the Games, which in turn promoted Los Angeles. ! '! Chapter 3 addresses the architectural imprint left behind by the Xth Olympiad. The first portion of the chapter introduces brief, narrative histories of each extant structure and site affiliated with the 1932 Olympics. The second section chronicles the remnants of non-extant venues with fleeting histories of athletic housing at the Chapman Park Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard and most notably, the Olympic Village in Baldwin Hills. Chapter 4 concludes with a selective building assessment of the most significant – and unrecognized – sites and structures used in the 1932 Games: the Olympic Auditorium on Grand and 18 th Avenue, the Los Angeles Police Academy in Elysian Park, and the Long Beach Marine Stadium. To better understand and appreciate the significance of the Xth Olympiad, both official and alternative designation processes can be applied to sites and structures utilized during the Games. Through various viewpoints and concepts gathered through primary and secondary sources, this thesis is a call to arms in raising awareness for the 1932 Olympic Games, whether it is at the local, state or national level. ! (! CHAPTER 1: THE OLYMPIC IDEAL The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well. - Pierre de Coubertin 1 Introduction From the birth of the Modern Olympic Movement in 1896, its founder, Pierre de Coubertin, advocated for and celebrated the values of amateur athleticism and the idea that competition was far more important than winning. The three words Citius, Altius, Fortius are Latin for Faster, Higher, Stronger. As the motto Coubertin’s notion of the Olympic Ideal, it exemplifies a call for individual, not national, athletic excellence. As a code of conduct for good sportsmanship, the Olympic Ideal encourages the constant strive for giving one’s best. 2 Coubertin borrowed two societal models to outline his principles for the ultimate athletic festival. From the ancient Greeks, he borrowed the name and concept of the Olympiad. From English sport, Coubertin laid out the foundations of what was going to become the modern Olympics. 3 Los Angeles in the early twentieth century was relatively unknown internationally. A small city associated with orange groves and Hollywood, Los Angeles seemed an unlikely locale to host a major event as the Olympic Games. In the wake of the First World War, the economy was booming. Social and ! )! cultural dynamics took a dramatic new turn. Automobiles, telephones, and motion picture films rapidly rose in popularity. William May Garland - a powerhouse figure with a knack for charming persuasion and the makings of the perfect salesman, utilized his charisma and high-ranking connections to garner interest in perhaps the most ambitious challenge of the era: selling Los Angeles to the world. Born in Westport, Maine in 1866, William May Garland spent a majority of his life in real estate development. Gradually making his way from the East Coast by way of Massachusetts and Illinois, Garland arrived in Los Angeles in 1890 to work as an auditor for the Pacific Cable Railway Company. Four years later, Garland ventured into the real estate industry by founding one of the first firms in Los Angeles – W.M. Garland & Company. By 1896, Garland & Company began residential development on the soon-to-be famous Wilshire Boulevard Tract. 4 Though he is best known for securing the Xth Olympiad for Los Angeles in 1932, Garland’s civic endeavors began nearly two decades earlier. Before making an Olympic bid for the United States at the 1923 International Olympic Committee meeting in Rome, Garland spent most of his time and energy as a leader in numerous municipal organizations, such as the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, the Los Angeles Realty Board, Los Angeles Art Association, Board of ! *! Education, Los Angeles Public Library Board, the California State Chamber of Commerce, as well as the president of the California Club and Los Angeles Athletic Club. 5 Considered to be one of the premier contributors to the growth of Los Angeles, Garland had the city’s most influential circle of movers and shakers within arm’s reach. Appointed by Mayor Meredith Snyder, the California Fiestas Association (CFA) was created to revitalize and celebrate the Spanish-Mexican heritage of Los Angeles in 1919. Comprised of the city’s most influential businessmen – and led by William May Garland – the CFA acted as a booster club to reel in tourists and profit to the region. Lasting only a year, the CFA was dissolved and renamed the Community Development Association in 1920. Revamped under the new name, the CDA retained its oligarchy of industrial magnates. An ambitious step up from promoting the Spanish Colonial legacy of the city, the CDA sought to elevate Los Angeles into a place worthy of staging an Olympiad. 6 As president of the CDA, Garland attempted – and failed – multiple times in persuading the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to bring the Games “out West.” In a 1923 visit to Rome, Garland’s patience and determination was finally redeemed as the IOC awarded Los Angeles – and the rest of the United States – the Games of the Xth Olympiad. Intrigued by his unfaltering commitment and perseverance, the IOC invited him to join its prestigious ranks. 7 The following year, under Garland’s guidance, the thirty members of the Los Angeles Olympic ! +! Organizing Committee (LAOOC) began the daunting task of planning the biggest event to occur on the Pacific Coast. Uncertainty and the Great Depression While the struggle and resources used to attain the Games took nearly a decade, Black Tuesday marked the ominous beginning of the Great Depression. In the early planning stages of the Xth Olympiad, the LAOOC’s work halted once they realized their funding for the Games was lost. According to The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report, “….general participation of the nations was doubtful and liberal patronage by a financially depressed public was hardly to be expected.” 8 The governor of California, James Rolph struggled with the mounting pressure to cancel the Games as the Depression wore on. 9 With no end in sight, clouds of doubt and worry lingered over the LAOOC. Prior the Depression, the 1932 Olympic Games were seen as a cause célèbre. However, how could Los Angeles provide a worthwhile backdrop to host the world’s finest athletes when nearly a quarter of the country was unemployed? The idea of staging the Xth Olympiad was perceived as inappropriate and frivolous. During an inter-war era of flux and uncertainty, it is important to point out that there was in this case a broader cultural context than there had been for any other modern Olympiad. The spectacle of sport was used – and was most likely abused – to offer the masses a sense of “hope, escapism, individual ! ,! accomplishment and collective pride.” 10 To Angelenos, the Games had potential to revitalize the city by using the Olympiad as an “antidote for Depression-era hardships.” 11 To William May Garland and the LAOOC, the 1932 Olympic Games provided the means for creating a cultural, political and economic experiment. 12 The Mega-Event Strategy Recognized for being the Games that survived the Great Depression, Los Angeles was praised for its planning and development process, as well as for being the first Olympiad to turn a profit. 13 The 1932 Games urged the nation to rekindle its sense of spirit in a time of economic adversity. 14 The post-World War One era bore witness to a torrent of heightened American nationalism. The Games were utilized as a type of gauge for “judging national superiority.” 15 Thinly disguised as one of Pierre de Coubertin’s idealized Olympic Games, the Xth Olympiad was, in all reality, the product of a well thought-out, profit-driven, socio-cultural and esteem-boosting test known as a mega-event. Dr. Maurice Roche introduced the term mega-event in the early 2000s. A sociology professor at the University of Sheffield in England, Roche defines mega-events as “large-scale cultural (including commercial and sporting) events, which have dramatic character, mass appeal and international significance.” 16 Unlike annual events such as the Tour de France, Wimbledon, or the Kentucky Derby, a mega- ! -! event only occurs after a specific interval of years. They include but are not limited to: World Expositions, the FIFA World Cup, and the Olympic Games. The substantial differences between events like the Kentucky Derby and the World Cup are these: Horse racing fans both near and far will always know to set their eyes on Churchill Downs the first Saturday in May. Soccer fans may already know that the 2014 FIFA World Cup will take place in Brazil, but where will it be in 2018? And in 2022? 17 The somewhat happenstance nature of a mega-event is what makes it so intriguing; groups of people come together and work towards a common goal that will eventually result in a fleeting - yet significant - moment in time. Every so often, it is just a blip on the radar of history. At other times, it can leave a tremendous legacy that may carry on for generations. According to Matthew Burbank, author of Olympic Dreams: The Impact of Mega-Events on Local Politics, hosting a high-profile event such as the Olympics provides the “ideal platform” 18 for the international recognition of a city. This “platform,” essentially a tool in which the Olympic Ideal is displayed to the global audience, provides the host city a golden opportunity to become associated with the Olympic image. 19 The coveted Olympic image acts as a branding mechanism – similar to the Bilbao Effect - wherein the city gains a new international identity and prestige through urban revitalization projects. ! %.! National and City Identity Although the term mega-event had not come into existence until the turn of the twenty-first century, the notion of a temporal event with international appeal dates back to the late modern era of the Industrial Revolution. The earliest examples of the mega-event can be found in World Expositions. Commonly known as World Fairs, these events showcased a selection of the finest commercial products and designs at the time, such as the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the Crystal Palace in London, the Paris World’s Fair of 1889 and the Eiffel Tower, the Ferris Wheel and the 1893 Chicago Columbian Exposition, San Francisco’s Palace of Fine Arts from the 1915 Pan-Pacific Exposition, and the Seattle Space Needle from the 1962 World’s Fair. While not all of these structures survive today, they are icons that helped shape the host city. Noted for being an ephemeral occurrence, a mega-event provides the “nexus for producing cultural images and myths.” 20 A host city, no matter how prominent it is on the global radar, is for a fleeting moment elevated to a level of worldwide importance. Similar in scale and importance to a World’s Fair, sporting events such as the World Cup or the Olympic Games look to the matter of “modernity and localism” as crucial elements in staging a successful mega-event. 21 ! %%! Conclusion In Pierre de Coubertin-like fashion, the IOC’s ambitious and utopian stance of the Olympic Games was meant to act as a “great grouping of people and the withering away of nation states.” 22 The Games bring nations together under the common bond of sport, yet they are pitted against each other in “exaggerated displays of nationalism.” 23 The sugarcoated hopes and dreams of the IOC are quickly replaced with competitive sport and competitive nations. The LAOOC dubbed the Games as “us” versus “them;” and in the case of the 1932 Olympics, it was Los Angeles versus the world. ! %&! Chapter 1 Endnotes __________________ 1. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee, 1933, 11. 2. Ibid. 3. Bill Shaikin, Sport and Politics: The Olympics and the Los Angeles Games (New York: Praeger, 1988): 21-22. 4. “William May Garland,” Olympic Review, http://www.la84foundation.org/OlympicInformationCenter/OlympicReview/1948/BDCE12/ DCE12f.pdf. 5. Lewis Publishing Company. “William May Garland.” California and Californians IV (1932): 46-47, http://files.usgwarchives.net/ca/losangeles/bios/garland1013gbs.txt. 6. Kevin Starr, The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 174. 7. Al Stump, “1932: The ‘Hopeless’ Dream of William May Garland,” Olympic Review 274 (1990): 381-387. 8. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee, 1933, 31. 9. Al Stump, “1932: The ‘Hopeless’ Dream of William May Garland,” Olympic Review 274 (1990): 382. 10. Alan Tomlinson and Christopher Young, National Identity and Global Sports Events: Culture, Politics, and Spectacle in the Olympics and the Football World Cup (New York: SUNY Press, 2006), 168. 11. Sean Dinces, “Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Olympic Mega-Event,” Journal of Sport History (Summer 2005): 139. 12. Alan Tomlinson and Christopher Young, National Identity and Global Sports Events: Culture, Politics, and Spectacle in the Olympics and the Football World Cup (New York: SUNY Press, 2006), 173. 13. Sean Dinces, “Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Olympic Mega-Event,” Journal of Sport History (Summer 2005): 138. 14. Mark Dyreson, “Marketing National Identity: The Olympic Games of 1932 and American Culture,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies IV (1995): 26. 15. David B. Welky, “Viking Girls, Mermaids, and Little Brown Men: U.S. Journalism and the 1932 Olympics,” Journal of Sport History 24, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 41. 16. Maurice Roche, Mega-events and Modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture (New York: Routledge, 2000), 1. ! %'! 16. 2018: Russia, 2022: Qatar. FIFA Fact Sheet, “Overview of all the FIFA World Cup host countries, 1930-2022,” FIFA, (December 2005), http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompovw/51/99/03/133485-factsheet- fifahostcountriesoverview1930-2022.pdf. 18. Matthew Burbank, Gregory Andranovich and Charles Heying, Olympic Dreams: The Impact of Mega-Events on Local Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 2001), 29. 19. Ibid., 15. 20. Mark Dyreson, “Marketing National Identity: The Olympic Games of 1932 and American Culture,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies IV (1995): 23. 21. Sean Dinces, “Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Olympic Mega-Event,” Journal of Sport History (Summer 2005): 139. 22. Roger Levermore and Adrian Budd, Sport and International Relations: An Emerging Relationship (New York: Routledge, 2004), 20. 23. Ibid. ! ! %(! CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Introduction William May Garland and the LAOOC were unaware of what a tremendous undertaking the Xth Olympiad would be. Two major forces had been working against them: the geographic isolation of Los Angeles in relation to previous Olympic host cities, and the devastating effects of the Great Depression. However daunting these two factors may have been, the creative genius and marketing finesse of Garland and other Olympic supporters established a catalyst for the urban regeneration of Los Angeles. Los Angeles in the early twentieth century had not risen to the prominence of its East Coast counterparts. The city lacked the density of New York City, the patriotic roots of Philadelphia and Boston, and the political nucleus of Washington, D.C. The entire state of California, as well as Los Angeles, seemed all too distant, too isolated, too off-the-beaten-path to garner any interest from tourists and business entrepreneurs alike. The remoteness of Los Angeles may have deterred many people from visiting the city, but the Community Development Association found an ingenious way to promote tourism in the region. By staging and producing the Olympic Games as a spectacle, they were able to represent this mega-event as a surrogate World’s Fair. 1 With the United States as the world leader in producing mass media and mass culture, it is no ! %)! surprise that organizing an Olympiad would utilize elements of public relations, advertising, salesmanship and promotion to the fullest extent. 2 When the Community Development Association (CDA) was created in 1920, it consisted of the city’s industrial crème de la crème. Led by Garland, this powerful coterie yearned to enrich the city’s business interest by transforming Los Angeles into a metropolis ready to host an Olympiad. With the influence of business magnates, the CDA was determined to use any means necessary to lure the largest influx of people to California since the Gold Rush. 3; 4 This unofficial “Garland Group” was made up oil-field developers, industrialists, tourism promoters, university presidents, and newspaper publishers. 5 The most notable members were Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times, Frank A. Garbutt, co-founder (along with Garland) of the Riviera Country Club and Los Angeles Athletic Club, Max Ihmsen, publisher of the Los Angeles Examiner, Zack J. Farmer, journalist of the Herald-Examiner, and many others. 6; 7; 8 One commonality that is most evident in the CDA roster is the large percentage of wealthy Caucasian businessmen, who, for the most part have ready access to powerful institutions such as newspapers, banks or universities. 9 By skillfully gathering the city’s finest power players together, Garland prompted the CDA to utilize sport and civic duty as a means to enhance tourism and commerce in Los Angeles. 10 ! %*! First and foremost, the primary goal of the CDA was to secure an Olympiad for Los Angeles. In March 1920, CDA executive member Henry McKee stated, “…we must plan the intelligent development of our one most productive natural resource. This resource is the attractiveness of this locality to travelers and home- seekers…” 11 For this grandiose goal to come to fruition, the CDA aimed to erect a facility large enough to house athletic events, festivals, football games, and most important, the Olympic Games. When William May Garland pitched his idea to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1923, skeptics immediately cast aside any possibility of Los Angeles hosting an Olympiad. (See Appendix A.) Pierre de Coubertin, however, had recently visited California and felt that its vast distance from Europe was “far removed from the political turmoil that could endanger the Games.” 12 With Coubertin on his side, Garland’s successful bid for the 1932 Games gave the green light to perhaps the “most ambitious real-estate development in U.S. history – modern L.A.” 13 Coubertin’s award of the Xth Olympiad to Los Angeles granted the city and its civic boosters moderate freedom in what seemed to evoke a sense of sportsmanship and competition. In all actuality, it was a massive advertising opportunity to finally put a growing city on the international map. 14 ! %+! What appeared to the masses as a public celebration of amateur athleticism and camaraderie was a semi-private enterprise that incorporated the mega-event strategy in hopes of raising the cultural and civic profile of Los Angeles. The 1932 Olympics presented itself as a geographic leap away from the comfort zone of Western Europe and the Eastern Seaboard. 15 In the early years of the modern Olympic Movement, the Games catered predominantly to the upper echelon of European sport enthusiasts. As an up-and-coming city at the furthest edge of the Western frontier, Los Angeles was considered to be the “crossroads of the East and West.” 16 In Lieu of a World’s Fair An unconventional location for an Olympiad, Los Angeles needed to make the most out of the Games by promoting it as a substitute World’s Fair. 17 An international exposition is one of the many examples of a mega-event. This type of event happens on an irregular basis. Along with rigorous planning and promotion, the success of an Exposition greatly relies on the development and implementation of its host city. In lieu of a World’s Fair, the 1932 Games provided an excellent opportunity to give the city a much-needed facelift. Like many of its mega-event predecessors, Los Angeles and the LAOOC strove to effectively make a name for itself. Two previous Olympiads had actually taken place in conjunction with international ! %,! exhibitions. The Paris Olympics occurred during the Exposition Universelle in 1900, and the St. Louis Olympic Games were held during the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition. 18 In the nascent years of the modern Olympic Movement, Pierre de Coubertin’s ideals about athleticism and team spirit had yet to reach solid ground. As the second modern Olympiad, the 1900 Paris Games stretched over a period of five months. Due to severe under-promotion and low attendance, the much more publicized and popular Exposition Universelle eclipsed the Games. Four years later, the St. Louis Olympics repeated the same mistakes. Lasting just over four months, the St. Louis Games were brushed off as a sideshow amid the commotion and crowds at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition. 19 Wisely not wanting to make the same mistakes as Paris and St. Louis, Garland and the LAOOC aimed to make an unprecedented mark in the history of the modern Olympic Movement. By heavily emphasizing the notion of Los Angeles as a cultural melting pot, the LAOOC turned a spotlight on the city’s Spanish Colonial heritage and dubbed it the “California Style.” 20 Greatly influenced by the region’s previous mega-events such as the San Francisco Panama-Pacific International Exposition and the San Diego Panama-California Exposition which both began in 1915, the LAOOC likened the 1932 Games to the two Expositions. ! %-! Though both Expositions celebrated the opening of the Panama Canal, each city promoted its genius loci, or “sense of place.” 21 The Panama-California Exposition in Balboa Park was meant to flaunt and advertise San Diego as the first American port city upon heading north through the Canal. Bertram Goodhue and Carleton Winslow designed the buildings in the Spanish Colonial style. The Churrigueresque designs introduced Spanish Baroque architecture to the Southern California region. 22 Similarly celebrating the completion of the Panama Canal, the Panama-Pacific International Exposition was held in what is now the Marina district of San Francisco. Much more populated than San Diego or Los Angeles at the time of both Expositions, San Francisco did not promote tourism and economic endeavors as much as its San Diego counterpart. Instead, it presented to the world a metaphorical rise from the rubble of the Great Fire and Earthquake of 1906. In hosting an Exposition, San Francisco was successful in restoring the morale and economy of the city and the Bay Area. 23 Figure 1. California Tower, Bertram Goodhue. (Image courtesy of balboapark.org.)! ! &.! Both Garland and the LAOOC looked to these two host cities for inspiration on how to successfully execute – and eventually surpass - an internationally renowned mega-event. Two lessons can be taken away from these Expositions, which in turn formed the basis from which the Xth Olympiad was created. The first came from the notion of a regional style – the “California Style.” Prominent local designer Irving Gill originally conceived the San Diego Exposition with a Mission-themed master plan. Bertram Goodhue eventually replaced Gill as master architect.The public preferred Goodhue’s sculptural and ornate designs to the formal simplicity of Gill’s design. (See Figure 1.) The definitive debut of the Spanish Colonial Revival style at the Exposition resulted from Goodhue’s fascination with Spanish Baroque architecture and Churrigueresque embellishment. 24 The second lesson taken from the San Francisco Exposition was the concept of resurgence. It had been nearly a decade since the 1906 earthquake and fire ravaged the city. In an attempt to showcase the city’s comeback, the overall architectural scheme of the Exposition adhered to the Beaux-Arts style of its predecessor, the Chicago Columbian Exposition of 1893. Like Chicago, San Francisco wanted to prove that it had rebuilt itself from the ground up, and had made vast amounts of progress along the way, both culturally and economically. Looking back to an idealized past, the crowning jewel of the Panama-Pacific Exposition was – and still is today – the neoclassical Palace of Fine Arts, designed ! &%! by Bernard Maybeck. 25 (See Figure 2.) The monumental rotunda is perhaps one of the most iconic structures in the realm of mega-event host cities. Figure 2. Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco, Bernard Maybeck. (Image courtesy of the author.) ! &&! Promotion of Place These two important ideas – a sense of regional style and urban renaissance – directed the focus of the LAOOC and civic boosters into what would become the recurring theme for every Olympiad after the 1932 Games: city image and the promotion of place. According to the article, Urban Development through Hosting International Events by Brian Chalkley and Stephen Essex, the quest for national prestige “resides in the presentation of the best possible image of the host city to the international audience.” 26 The promotion of place provided a stimulus for urban investment and change - key factors for a city on the cusp of global recognition. By reminiscing about a romanticized past and anticipating a future of urban renewal, the LAOOC established – or perhaps fabricated – a particularity of place, a kind of “historical allure” for Los Angeles. 27 The cultural production of the Games was driven by the rhetorical power of Olympic boosters. At the heart of the Depression, William May Garland and the LAOOC diverted the attention of the world with aspects of “fantasy, erasure, opportunism and glamorization – the 1932 Olympics were pitched as a haven for multiculturalism.” 28 Olympic supporters painted a picture of Southern California as an “idyllic facsimile of [ancient] Olympia.” 29 In the article Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Mega-Event, Sean Dinces states that Olympic ! &'! boosters erroneously promoted the Los Angeles Games as the very first Olympiad to be held in the United States. Whether or not the LAOOC was conscious of this misnomer is debatable, but the label of the Xth Olympiad as the first to be held on American soil would soon be erroneously immortalized in pamphlets, programs, and even in a few official publications. 30 The ignorance of and/or denial of the 1904 Games appeared to have been a downright “erasure of legacy” for the St. Louis Olympiad. 31 The city and LAOOC boosters wanted to separate themselves from the Olympic Games/World’s Fair debacle, and in doing so hoped to portray their Games as a legitimate and unparalleled turning point in Olympic history. By breaking association with the 1904 Games (as well as the cities of the Midwest and East Coast), the push for regional specificity was reinforced by the “creative deception and manipulation of historical memory” brought on by civic boosters. 32 This brazenness is most evident in the laborious preparation and endorsement leading up to the 1932 Olympics. By renouncing the legitimacy of the 1904 St. Louis Games as the first American Olympiad, the LAOOC and the city’s civic boosters proceeded with its drive to emphasize the revamped identity of Los Angeles and its “exhibition in disguise.” 33 ! &(! Fixated on the grandiose notions of place promotion and city identity, promotional literature published by the LAOOC and Olympic supporters alike gave the Games themselves a somewhat superficial treatment. 34 Undivided attention was given to bringing the Olympics to Los Angeles. When it finally took place, civic boosters appeared to have cast it aside to focus solely on the after-effects of the Games – the association and branding of the Olympic image. Mega-Events over Time To reiterate Maurice Roche’s theory of the mega-event, these large-scale, high profile occasions can take numerous years to plan and develop. The events’ relatively short time frame tends to leave a lasting impact on its host city- regardless of its success or failure. The significance of mega-events extends over time. The first phase of a mega-event is with the pre-event. That is, the formulation and development of the event and the physical facilities that will be utilized. Next, there is the actual event itself. Hours upon hours are devoted to the momentous occasion, and whether or not it thrives or stumbles determines the fate of the post-event. The last and perhaps most critical phase of the mega-event, the post-event ultimately decides the direct and indirect impact of the occasion on its host city, or in other words, the legacy of both the city and the Games. 35 ! &)! Conclusion Through a tremendously calculated and persuasive marketing scheme, the heightened patriotism and civic pride that flooded the city in the summer of 1932 left an indelible mark upon the Los Angeles landscape. (See Figure 3.) While many of the structures and sites utilized during the 1932 Games have either been removed or renovated, it is imperative to identify these places because of their integral roles in the development of Los Angeles. Figure 3. Helms Bakery, “Official Baker” for the 1932 Summer Olympics, Culver City. (Image courtesy of justabovesunset.com.) ! &*! Chapter 2 Endnotes __________________ 1. Barbara Keys, Globalizing Sport: National Rivalry and International Community in the 1930s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 96. 2. Ibid. 3. Jeremy White, “The Los Angeles Way of Doing Things: The Olympic Village and the Practice of Boosterism in 1932,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies XI (2002): 82. 4. Barbara Keys, Globalizing Sport: National Rivalry and International Community in the 1930s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 90. 5. Al Stump, “The Olympics That Almost Wasn’t,” American Heritage 33, no. 5 (August/September 1982). 6. Steven A. Riess, “Power Without Authority: Los Angeles’ Elites and the Construction of the Coliseum,” Journal of Sport History 8, no. 1 (Spring 1981): 54. 7. Robert K. Barney, “Resistance, persistence, providence: The 1932 Los Angeles Olympic Games in perspective,” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 67.2 (June 1996): 148-160. 8. Ibid. 9. Steven A. Riess, “Power Without Authority: Los Angeles’ Elites and the Construction of the Coliseum,” Journal of Sport History 8, no. 1 (Spring 1981): 51. 10. Ibid, 54. 11. Barbara Keys, Globalizing Sport: National Rivalry and International Community in the 1930s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 90. 12. Ibid., 94. 13. Mark Dyreson, “Marketing National Identity: The Olympic Games of 1932 and American Culture,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies IV (1995): 17. 14. Barbara Keys, Globalizing Sport: National Rivalry and International Community in the 1930s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 94. 15. Ibid., 91. 16. Ibid., 94. 17. Jeremy White, “The Los Angeles Way of Doing Things: The Olympic Village and the Practice of Boosterism in 1932,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies XI (2002): 92. 18. “1932 Los Angeles Olympics,” International Olympic Committee, http://www.olympic.org/los-angeles-1932-summer-olympics. ! &+! 19. Ibid. 20. Mark Dyreson, “Marketing National Identity: The Olympic Games of 1932 and American Culture,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies IV (1995): 29. 21. genius loci. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius+loci?s=t. 22. Esther McCoy, Five California Architects (New York: Praeger Press, 1960), 89. 23. “Introduction: A Brief History,” The Panama Pacific International Exposition, http://www.sanfranciscomemories.com/ppie/history.html. 24. Esther McCoy, Five California Architects (New York: Praeger Press, 1960), 89. 25. Ibid., 38. 26. Brian Chalkley and Stephen Essex, “Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games,” Planning Perspectives 14 (1999). 27. Sean Dinces, “Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Olympic Mega-Event,” Journal of Sport History (Summer 2005): 142. 28. Ibid., 139. 29. Mark Dyreson, “Marketing National Identity: The Olympic Games of 1932 and American Culture,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies IV (1995): 25. 30. Sean Dinces, “Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Olympic Mega-Event,” Journal of Sport History (Summer 2005): 161. 31. Ibid., 162. 32. Ibid. 33. Jeremy White, “The Los Angeles Way of Doing Things: The Olympic Village and the Practice of Boosterism in 1932,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies XI (2002): 92. 34. Sean Dinces, “Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Olympic Mega-Event,” Journal of Sport History (Summer 2005): 143. 35. Maurice Roche, “Mega-events and micro-modernization: on the sociology of the new urban tourism,” BJS 43, no. 4 (December 1992), 580. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! &,! CHAPTER 3: ARCHITECTURAL IMPRINT Introduction The LAOOC and civic boosters alike sought to bring global recognition to their budding city by associating themselves with the Olympic image. (See Appendix B.) Many questions are hidden in the physical legacy for the Xth Olympiad. What sites were used during the Games? Where are they located? What can be done to make sure they last another eighty or eight hundred years? The architectural imprint of the 1932 Olympics is slowly fading. The overwhelming success of its much more profitable (and well-documented) successor, the 1984 Games of the XXIIIrd Olympiad, has overshadowed the 1932 Games. The architectural legacy of the first Los Angeles Olympics has barely been examined. Only a moderate level of research has been conducted on its tangible markers. Geographic Boundaries The geographical components of the Xth Olympiad are intricate and widespread. The core of the 1932 Games was Exposition Park, which was temporarily renamed Olympic Park. Its centerpiece, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, was called Olympic Stadium for the duration of the Games. Branching out from Olympic Park, various facilities dotted the Los Angeles landscape, ranging from the Rose Bowl in the northeast, to the scenic Pacific Coast Highway in the west, and south to the shores of Los Angeles Harbor. (See Appendix C.) All- ! &-! encompassing from a geographic standpoint, the venues utilized during the Games lured visitors – and locals alike – to escape from Depression-era worries. In the midst of the Great Depression, civic boosters and the LAOOC hastened to provide sports facilities and establishments to sufficiently meet the needs and specifications of Olympic competition. Fortunately, quite a number of existing sporting venues within Los Angeles County were readily adapted for Olympic use. However, the LAOOC paid a nominal fee for full use and control during the course of the Games. Apart from new stadiums constructed for the Swimming and Rowing competitions, all other Olympic events were held in existing venues. 1 Sites and facilities used for the duration of the Games vary in size and importance. Following is a brief narrative of venues utilized during the 1932 Olympics. While facilities were not built specifically for the occasion, those that played a more substantial role are emphasized. VENUES AND FACILITIES All sites and facilities are placed in order according to use i.e., existing sites, purpose-built sites and non-extant sites. ! '.! Existing Sites and Venues Los Angeles Harbor The Port of Los Angeles, alternately known as the Los Angeles Harbor, hosted all Yachting events during the Games. An existing local course was chosen due to ideal wind conditions, varied currents and an excellent view of the Pacific Ocean from the bluffs at Point Fermin. 2 Pacific Coast Highway Difficulty arose in finding a challenging-yet-safe locale for the Cross-Country Cycling event. Originally set at a total distance of 100 miles, the course was reduced by two-thirds to 100 km, due to traffic safety concerns. Olympic officiates believed that the best way to protect the well being of competitors was to stage the race on roadways that could be easily controlled, such as a large portion of the Pacific Coast Highway. After thorough investigation, a racecourse was laid out beginning near Moorpark in the Conejo Valley, then west to Oxnard on the coast, then finally along the coast finishing in Santa Monica. Two-thirds of the distance was along the coast, which meant traffic could easily be controlled while still having a comparable grade that fit within Olympic standards. 3 ! '%! Griffith Park Riverside Drive Utilized as the site for the 50 km walk, Riverside Drive in Griffith Park was one of the very few locales that could provide safe traffic conditions for competitors. Hosting an Olympiad in the automobile capital of the world resulted in a difficult planning process in which to conduct the competition. Officials from the International Athletic Foundation surveyed roadways within the vicinity of Griffith Park. The Walking course was laid out at 12,500 meters. Competitors would need to make two round trips on the course to fulfill the required distance. 4 Purpose Built Sites and Venues Olympic Stadium 3911 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles Located just south of the University of Southern California, Olympic Park was bordered by Exposition Boulevard to the north, Figueroa Street to the east, Santa Barbara Boulevard (now Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard) to the south and Vermont Avenue to the west. The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum was the brainchild of William May Garland and the Community Development Association. From its more humble origins as promoters of a romantic past, the CDA had become a collection of the city’s most powerful business elite. It boldly ! '&! proposed a joint plan for the city and county of Los Angeles to finance and construct a stadium in Exposition Park in hopes of one day hosting the Olympic Games for the first time west of the Mississippi River. 5 The construction of a new stadium in the heart of Los Angeles was considered a municipal obligation. Proclaimed as the soon-to-be crowning achievement for the city, this stadium was officially named the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to honor the fallen soldiers of World War I. 6 The stadium officially broke ground in December 1921, and construction was completed a mere sixteen months later in May 1923. 7 Designed by John and Donald Parkinson, the projected capacity of the stadium was seating for 75,000 spectators. John Parkinson had become fixated with the idea of making a lasting contribution to the city; he offered his services as a “civic donation” throughout the construction of the stadium. 8 Promoted as the icon for the newly appointed Olympic host city, the Art Deco inspired stadium – briefly renamed the Olympic Stadium in anticipation for the 1932 Games – became the “edifice for the purpose of holding and maintaining industrial exhibitions, agricultural fairs, street pageants, athletic exhibitions and other performances.” 9 (See Figure 4.) In 1930, two years before the Games were to take place, the Parkinsons were re-commissioned to reconstruct the Olympic Stadium, increasing the capacity to over 100,000 seats. This resulted in one of the most expensive and largest sports venues of the era. 10 ! ''! Figure 4. Olympic Stadium, John and Donald Parkinson. (Image courtesy of USC Libraries.) As the world stage for presentation of the highly anticipated Opening and Closing Ceremonies for the Games, the Olympic Stadium required specialized alterations and additions to comply with regulations from the International Sports Federation. The iconic Olympic Torch was constructed and raised 107 feet above the central peristyle. Constructed of concrete, the Torch shaft was designed to be compatible with the architectural style of the Stadium, and capped with a bronze bowl to house the Olympic flame. 11 Because the Stadium had been constructed the “American way,” there was a lack of specialized seating arrangements for visiting foreign dignitaries and officials. ! '(! A Tribune was constructed to provide seating for members of the International Olympic Committee, National Olympic Committee, presidents of International Sports Federations, and Olympic Juries. 12 160 th Regiment State Armory 700 Exposition Park Drive, Los Angeles Situated to the northeast of the Stadium, the State Armory of the 160 th Infantry hosted fencing events as a part of the pentathlon competition. (See Figure 5.) Constructed in 1912 to the design of official California state architect J.W. Wollett, the Armory was offered at no expense to the LAOOC. To provide necessary space and equipment in compliance with Olympic regulations, the venue was rearranged to make way for dressing rooms, as well as 1,800 seats. 13 Grand Olympic Auditorium 1801 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles Caught up in the Olympic fever during the early 1920s, the Olympic Auditorium began construction in 1924, one year after Los Angeles was awarded the Xth Olympiad. The LAOOC leased the Auditorium for training and competitions that included Weightlifting, Boxing and Wrestling events. In accordance with Figure 5. Fencing Stadium, State Armory Building, J.W. Wollett. (Image courtesy of The Official Report.) ! ! ')! Olympic guidelines, the 10,000-seat Auditorium acquired a new boxing ring, dressing rooms, and a press stand. (See Figure 6.) This resulted in the Auditorium becoming the largest U.S. arena designated for boxing. 14 When the Auditorium opened its doors in August 1925, its first visitors were notable celebrities and athletes such as Sid Grauman, Rudy Valentino and Jack Dempsey. Renowned architect Gilbert Stanley Underwood designed the structure in a stripped down version of the Italianate style. 15 The massive stuccoed box design of the venue pre-dates many of Underwood’s more recognized buildings, such as the “park-itechture” of the Bryce Canyon Lodge, Zion Lodge, Old Faithful Lodge and most notably, the Ahwahnee Hotel. 16 Figure 6. Grand Olympic Auditorium, Gilbert Stanley Underwood. (Image courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library.) ! ! '*! The Rose Bowl 1001 Rose Bowl Drive, Pasadena Situated within the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena, the Rose Bowl was conceived by the Tournament of Roses Association. Designed by Myron Hunt between 1921 and 1922, the “bowl” was originally constructed in a horseshoe form reminiscent of ancient Greco-Roman theaters and arenas. 17 Chosen as the site for the Cycling events for the Olympiad, the Rose Bowl was made available to the LAOOC due to its capacity to hold 85,000 visitors. In order to comply with the Olympic regulations, a temporary velodrome track was constructed inside the bowl with assistance from the International Cycling Federation. 18 (See Figure 7.) At the conclusion of the Cycling competition of the Games, the velodrome was dismantled and given to the Tournament Association. The salvaged lumber from the cycling track was later reused in part in the 1933 construction of La Casita Del Arroyo, a community-meeting house for the Pasadena Garden Club. Built as Figure 7. Temporary velodrome. (Image courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress.) ! ! '+! a Public Works Project, it was designed free of charge by Myron Hunt who, along with his wife, were active members of the organization. 19 Los Angeles Police Academy 1880 Academy Drive, Los Angeles Located on 21-acres in Elysian Park, the Los Angeles Police Academy hosted shooting events for the pentathlon portion of the Olympic Games. Officially called the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club (LAPRAAC), the Academy was created in 1925. When the LAPRAAC turned the shooting range over to the LAOOC, slight alterations were made to adhere to the requirements of the International Shooting Federation, as well as the International Pentathlon Committee. 20 New Olympic-approved improvements to the facility consisted of a 6-lane bonus range, and shooting distances converted to meters instead of yards. (See Figure 8.) At the conclusion of the Games, the LAOOC awarded Police Chief James Figure 8. Los Angeles Police Academy Shooting Range. (Images courtesy of The Games of the Xth Olympiad Official Report.) ! ! ',! Davis one of the mess halls from the Olympic Village in Baldwin Hills. By 1936, the Academy was expanded to make way for a brand new gymnasium designed in the Mission style by the official Los Angeles city architect, Peter Karl Schabarum. 21 Sunset Fields Golf Club 590 South Burlingame Avenue, Los Angeles Situated between San Vicente Boulevard and Montana Avenue, the former Sunset Fields Golf Course is currently home to the Brentwood Country Club. As the locale for the Cross-Country Running portion of the Pentathlon, the distance of the dale and hill course was 4000 meters, almost two-thirds of length of the Club’s fairways. 22 Riviera Country Club 1250 Capri Drive, Los Angeles Just to the west of Sunset Fields Golf Club between Sunset and San Vicente Boulevards, the prestigious Riviera Country Club was chosen as the headquarters for all Olympic Equestrian events. (See Figure 10.) Founded by William May Garland and Frank A. Garbutt, the celebrated golf course architect Figure 9. Equestrian Stadium, Riviera Country Club. (Image courtesy of The Games of the Xth Olympiad Official Report.) ! ! '-! George C. Thomas was commissioned to design it in 1926. 23 Spread over 300 acres, four polo fields were constructed, as well has a 2.5 mile steeplechase designed by Australian rider Snowy Baker. 24 Apart from the existing horse stables and other facilities on site, the LAOOC agreed to cover the expenses for housing and equipment dedicated to visiting racehorses. New construction included a steeplechase, additional stables, a permanent grandstand with a capacity for 3,000 spectators, as well as 6,500 temporary seats. 25 Long Beach Marine Stadium 5255 Paoli Way, Long Beach Originally carved out of a mile-long saltwater bog, the Marine Stadium located in Long Beach is the first man-made rowing course built to accommodate the Olympic Games. 26 In 1923, 7 million cubic yards of sand and mud was dredged out of the tidelands of Alamitos Bay. In 1932, the Marine Stadium was Figure 10. Long Beach Marine Stadium. (Image courtesy of The Games of the Xth Olympiad Official Report.) ! ! (.! completed, fulfilling the requirements for Olympic usage. 27 New construction consisted of grandstand seating for 17,000 spectators (as well as two miles of standing room along the rowing course), a boathouse, docks and platforms. (See Figure 10.) The LAOOC agreed to give the city of Long Beach the facility after it fulfilled its purpose for the Games. 28 Opening just one week before the start of the Games in July 23, 1932, the Marine Stadium was the first rowing venue in which a race could be seen from start to finish. 29 Swimming Stadium 3980 Bill Robertson Lane, Los Angeles Located to the southwest of the Stadium, the newly constructed Swimming Stadium was built in accordance with the requirements of the International Swimming Federation. Due to the economic austerity of the era, the LAOOC were indecisive about whether or not to put up an affordable – yet temporary – swimming venue, or propose to build a permanent structure. A proposal for a permanent stadium in the Art Deco style was presented to the Board of Playground and Recreation Commissioners. (See Figure 11.) The board accepted the plan, which resulted in a concrete Figure 11. Swimming Stadium. (Image courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library.) ! (%! construction of the stadium to hold 5,000 spectators, as well as a wooden grandstand with 5,000 more seats. 30 Memorial Gateway Exposition Park, Los Angeles Located along Exposition Boulevard and across the way from the University of Southern California, the Memorial Gateway provides entry into the Rose Garden at Exposition Park. The Gateway is made up of multiple elements- two symmetrical torch lights, concrete benches that extend the length from the street to the Rose Garden entrance, and two large bas-relief sculpture panels. Commissioned in 1931, Hungarian artist Bartholomew Mako designed the Memorial Gateway. (See Figure 12.) The two bas-relief panels depict Olympic athletes from both the Ancient and Modern Games. 31 Figure 12. Memorial Gateway bas-relief panel. (Image courtesy of the author.) ! (&! Mexican Fan Palm Trees Various Locations While there is no official designation for the abundant Mexican Fan palms that dot the Angeleno landscape, it is important to acknowledge their role in the development of the Xth Olympiad. Inspired by the City Beautiful Movement at the turn of the 20 th century, the iconic palm trees were planted one year before the 1932 Games. In the most methodical planting of palms the city had ever seen, these trees were meant to show Olympic visitors that Los Angeles appreciated civic beauty. 32 The assortment of sites and venues that played a role in the 1932 Summer Olympics are significant as a collective whole. While the Rose Bowl and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum are two of the finest stadia constructed, other Olympic venues should also be acknowledged- especially those that have fallen victim to time and urban development. Non-extant Sites The number of facilities that make up the physical legacy of the Xth Olympiad remain few and far between. For the sites and structures that have been lost, their stories provide a deeper glance into the evolution of modern Los Angeles. ! ('! As stated in Chapter 2, the 1932 Olympics were erroneously dubbed as the first legitimate Games to be held on U.S. soil. Civic boosters, along with the rest of the nation, disregarded the 1904 St. Louis Games due to the fact that it was held concurrently with the Louisiana Purchase Exposition. Olympic supporters saw this fiasco as an opportunity to start anew, and to turn a spotlight onto their growing city. Since the success of the first Los Angeles Games, Olympic boosters almost always profess that the real value (or motive) of becoming a host city undoubtedly stems from being associated with the Olympic Image. 33 Where the 1904 Games faltered, the 1932 Games flourished. Los Angeles succeeded in selling the city to tourists, speculators, and entrepreneurs alike. St. Louis lacked the regional magnetism of Southern California. The city had a strong and supportive civic booster club led by William May Garland. By the time the Depression clouded over Olympic anticipation, planning and development for the Xth Olympiad nearly came to a standstill. Thanks to quick thinking and ingenious marketing, the LAOOC established a subsidized cost for participating athletes at the rate of only two dollars per day. This reduced price covered housing, dining, entertainment and local transportation. Along with a cut-rate price on transportation abroad, almost every foreign competitors were able to participate in the Games on a budget of around five hundred dollars. 34 ! ((! A subsidized fee was not the only innovative prospect that made the 1932 Games successful. Facilities solely dedicated to athletic housing, training and entertainment were implemented for the first time during the Xth Olympiad. In an effort to stave off apprehension and withdrawal by participating nations, Zack Farmer, general manager and secretary of the LAOOC, pitched a novel idea that would forever change the way Olympiads were developed: the construction of an Olympic Village. 35 Women’s Housing: Chapman Park Hotel 3405 Wilshire Boulevard Before delving into a study of the original Olympic Village, it is important to recognize the oft-overlooked Women’s Athletic Housing, which was located at the Chapman Park Hotel. Because of the particularity of “feminine needs”, the LAOOC felt it would be more appropriate for women competitors to be housed in a permanent type of residence as opposed to cohabitating with men at the Olympic Village. 36 Figure 13. Chapman Park Hotel, Samuel Chapman. (Image courtesy of The Games of the Xth Olympiad Official Report.) ! ! ()! Generous collaboration occurred between the LAOOC and the Chapman family. The family patriarch, Charles Clarke Chapman, is best known as the “Father of the Valencia orange industry.” A self-made man from Chicago, Chapman and his family moved to California in 1884. Formerly a real estate developer, banker and civic leader, he became the first mayor of Fullerton and founded Chapman College. 37 Along with his brother Samuel, Charles developed both the Chapman Market and Chapman Park Hotel along Wilshire Boulevard. An initial scheme to accommodate women in the Olympic Village was quickly dropped in the early planning stages. Zack Farmer, secretary of the Community Development Association and general manager of the LAOOC, had considered utilizing dormitories at the University of Southern California. While that location was conveniently located near Exposition Park and the Memorial Coliseum, Farmer opted for the Chapman Park Hotel in the Wilshire district of Los Angeles. The Hotel readily volunteered their accommodations and services at the same rate of two dollars per day. (See Figure 13.) Located on Wilshire Boulevard, had access to entertainment, dining and shopping. 38 It was also in close proximity to the famed Ambassador Hotel and Brown Derby Restaurant. 39 With the entire hotel rented out for female athletes, rooms comprised of two twin beds and a private bath. Other amenities available to female Olympians included ! (*! lounges, private gardens, and a 200-person dining room that served “All- American” cuisine. 40 Built by Charles and Samuel Chapman in 1925, the Chapman Park Hotel was designed in the Italian Renaissance Revival style. Four years after the Olympic Games, a five-acre addition was designed and constructed by Carleton Winslow. This included a collection of bungalows built in the Pueblo Revival style. The Hotel was demolished in 1967 to make way for the construction of the thirty- four-story Equitable Life Building, designed by Welton Becket and Associates. 41 Men’s Housing: Olympic Village View Park – Baldwin Hills As the reigning hallmark of a pioneering and prolific LAOOC, general manager Zack Farmer’s master plan for an Olympic Village would only be immortalized in the pages of Olympic pamphlets, brochures and scholarly literature. The site chosen for the Village was located in the View Park-Baldwin Hills area of Los Angeles, due to its proximity to Olympic Park and a drastically lower temperature than in any other part of the city. 42 Previously used for growing barley and beans the 330 acres of open land was leased to the LAOOC by Albert E. Snyder, Joseph Doble Mullender and Rosebudd Mullender, heirs to the Clara Baldwin Stocker estate. 43 ! (+! As the eldest daughter of Elias “Lucky” Baldwin, Clara Baldwin Stocker was one of the principle heirs to her father’s horse-racing and gold-mining fortune. 44 Living a rather indulgent lifestyle, Clara had married four times, divorced three times, and was once widowed. Upon her father’s passing, Clara had inherited an estate worth $10 million with property in Inglewood, Arcadia and Baldwin Hills. 45 Located along Santa Barbara Avenue (currently Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard), the Village sat only ten minutes west of the Olympic Stadium. 46 The Olympic Village, a miniature “city” of sorts, took up 158 acres of the site, which conformed to the contours of surrounding Baldwin Hills. In compliance with the landowners ‘ wishes, the temporary housing did not leave any marks or disfigure the original land. 47 (See Figure 14.) The LAOOC chose to construct a bungalow system of housing units instead of dormitories and military-like Figure 14. Composite overlay of Olympic Village. (Image courtesy of Google Maps and the author.) ! ! (,! bunkers. These portable structures, or “Olympic Cottages” were designed to house four athletes, in two adjacent ten by ten foot rooms. 48 Built a mere three months before the start of the Games, the Olympic Village was designed in the “California-esque” Mission Revival style. The Mexican-Spanish motif was also used throughout the rest of the Village- from the huge mess halls to the centrally-located Administration Building. The architectural homogeneity of the Village was a proclamation of “international harmony, where every nation was housed alike.” 49 A Product of its Time In Jeremy White’s article about the 1932 Games, The Los Angeles Way of Doing Things, he writes that the Olympic Village had four primary functions: 1) To persuade National Olympic Committees (NOCs) that the trip to Los Angeles was economically feasible, and that their athletes would be accommodated in a clean, well-organized and private settlement; 2) It would manifest fair play and multi-national/multi-racial harmony; 3) Stimulate local interest in the Games; 4) Generate interest in the greater U.S. towards Los Angeles as an attractive destination for the tourist, new residents, and business investments. 50 ! (-! In essence, the Olympic Village was a tourist attraction. As an “exposition in disguise,” 51 the Village could easily be compared to the Midway Plaisance and its ethnographic villages from the 1893 Chicago Columbian Exposition. Like Chicago’s Midway, the Olympic Village genuinely wanted to bring international athletes under one idealistic roof. The Village layout was devised in such a way that national teams would be “situated in accordance with their known national sympathies.” Portions of the Village were clusters designated for Latin American countries, Southern European nations, Great Britain and her delegates from the British Empire, and so on. 52 It seems as if the LAOOC was not ready to fully commit to the Olympic ideal of international harmony. Similar to a theme park, the Olympic Village projected qualities of a “tourist bubble.” In a vast urban locale like Los Angeles, the Olympic Village, as well as the Olympic Stadium complex, delineated a fine line between tourist spaces and the rest of the city. 53 (See Figure 15.) Almost an Olympic version of a Potemkin Village, Zack Farmer’s grand plan offered theme park “qualities” that catered to athletes and visitors Figure 15. Olympic Village Cottages (Image courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library.) ! ).! alike: a safe, clean and simulated environment that was showcased to the world. 54 Although the Village basked in Olympic glory for a few short months, its purpose-built structures were disassembled days after the Closing Ceremony and sold as post-Olympic salvage. A majority of Olympic bungalows were sold off as private cabins, guesthouses and beach cottages. 55 Few of the cottages have survived, such as the bungalow used by the Japanese contingent that was gifted (and shipped) to the Japanese Olympic Committee, 56 as well as the bungalow used by the Mexican contingent which was relocated to Olvera Street in downtown Los Angeles. (See Figure 16.) The land that housed the Village was subdivided in 1937, and the only hints of the former are two commemorative streets called Olympiad Drive and Athenian Way. 57 Although both the Chapman Park Hotel and Olympic Village are no longer in their physical form, traces of their existence still linger. These two sites housed the best of the best in the realm of amateur athleticism, and it is a shame that neither has tangible evidence of the roles they played in the summer of 1932. As historians, locals, and visitors alike, the best we can do is to preserve the memory of these places. Conclusion The assortment of sites and venues that played a role in the 1932 Summer Olympics are significant as a collective whole. While the Rose Bowl and the Los ! )%! Angeles Memorial Coliseum are two of the finest stadia constructed, other Olympic venues should also be acknowledged- especially those that have fallen victim to time and urban development. Figure 16. Olympic Cottages on Olvera Street. (Image courtesy of http://www.lataco.com/taco/1932-olvera-street) ! ! )&! Chapter 3 Endnotes __________________ 1. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 61. 2. Ibid., 585. 3. Ibid., 75. 4. Ibid., 74. 5. Ibid., 35. 6. James H. Charleton, “Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory- Nomination Form”.http://landmarkwatch.org/PDF/ColiseumNHL.pdf 7. Chris Epting, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (Chicago: Arcadia Publishing, 2002). 8. Marshall Berges, “The Coliseum a Tribute to L.A.’s Endless Quest for Civic Improvement,” Los Angeles Times, July 29 1984. 9. Steven A. Riess, “Power Without Authority: Los Angeles’ Elites and the Construction of the Coliseum,” Journal of Sport History 8, no. 1 (Spring 1981), 54. 10. Ibid., 56. 11. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 65. 12. Ibid., 66. 13. Ibid., 68. 14. Ibid., 70. 15. David Israel, “A Dream House,” Sports Illustrated, July 1982, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1125687/6/index.html. 16. Rodd L. Wheaton, “Gilbert Stanley Underwood: 1890-1960,” National Park Service: The First 75 Years, December 2000, http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/sontag/underwood.htm. 17. Michelle L. Turner and the Pasadena Museum of History, The Rose Bowl (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2010), 11. 18. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 74. 19. “History,” La Casita del Arroyo, http://lacasitadelarroyo.org/?page_id=12. 20. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 74. ! )'! 21. Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club. Personal interview. January 28, 2012. 22. Ibid., 77. 23. Michael Konik, “Kings of Clubs,” Los Angeles Magazine 43, no. 4 (April 1998). 24. Harry Williams, Los Angeles Times, “Meadowbrook Planned Here,” Dec. 10, 1931. 25. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 74. 26. John Pope, “Long Beach: Marine Stadium Earns Landmark Status,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 11, 1994. 27. LSA Associates, Inc., “4.4 Cultural and Historic Resources,” Draft EIR: Alamitos Bay Marina Rehabilitation Project, City of Long Beach, October 2009: 1, http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3142. 28. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 71. 29. Paul McLeod, “Homage to 60 Golden Years of Marine Stadium’s Waterway,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 7, 1992. 30. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 66. 31. Los Angeles Times, “Services Set for Artist Bartholomew Mako, 79,” Jan. 9, 1970. 32. Claire Spiegel, “Back in Vogue: Landscapers Fan Out for Palm Trees,” Los Angeles Times, May 23, 1987. 33. Matthew Burbank, Gregory Andranovich and Charles Heying, Olympic Dreams: The Impact of Mega-Events on Local Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 2001), 1. 34. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 47. 35. Doris Hinson Pieroth, Their Day in the Sun: Women of the 1932 Olympics (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996), 86. 36. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 292. 37. Los Angeles Times, “C.C. Chapman Dies at Ranch,” April 7 1994, A1 38. Los Angeles Times, “Zack Farmer; Sports Leader,” January 18 1968, C18. 39. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 292. 40. Los Angeles Times, “Zack Farmer; Sports Leader,” January 18 1968, C18. ! )(! 41. “State Armory Building,” http://you-are here.com/downtown/armory.html. 42. Art Ronnie, “Life and Death of a Village,” Westways, 52, August 1960. 43. Ibid. 44. Los Angeles Times, “Lucky’ Baldwin Heiress Passes,” February 28 1929, A1. 45. “Paving the Way: The Stories Behind the Names of L.A.’s Streets.” http://heritagesquare.org/blog/paving-the-way-the-stories-behind-the-names-of-l-a-s-streets. 46. “Town Mapped for Olympiad,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 22, 1932, A1. 47. Terrel Delapp, “End of Olympic Village Near,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14, 1932. 48. Official Report, The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report (Los Angeles: Xth Olympiad Committee), 1933, 264. 49. Jeremy White, “The Los Angeles Way of Doing Things: The Olympic Village and the Practice of Boosterism in 1932,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies XI (2002): 94. 50. Ibid., 79. 51. Ibid., 92. 52. Mark Dyreson, “Marketing National Identity: The Olympic Games of 1932 and American Culture,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies IV (1995): 24. 53. Matthew Burbank, Gregory Andranovich and Charles Heying, Olympic Dreams: The Impact of Mega-Events on Local Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 2001), 36. 54. Ibid. 55. Jeremy White, “The Los Angeles Way of Doing Things: The Olympic Village and the Practice of Boosterism in 1932,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies XI (2002): 100. 56. “Japan Gets Gift from Olympiad,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 28, 1932, 14. 57. Art Ronnie, “Life and Death of a Village,” Westways, 52, August 1960. ! ! ))! CHAPTER 4: BUILDING ASSESSMENT Introduction In conducting an inventory of venues related to the 1932 Los Angeles Games, the efforts to identify historic resources have led to many sources. By carrying out historical research for these locations, primary and secondary sources such as historic photographs, maps, published local histories, and archival newspaper articles have been accessed. Previous Surveys and Designations Multiple historic resource surveys have been examined. A number of historical landmarks have already been designated at the City, State or National level: Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) – July 27, 1984 1 National Historic Landmark (NHL) – July 27, 1984 2 California Historical Landmark (CHL) #960 3 Rose Bowl National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) – February 27, 1987 4 National Historic Landmark (NHL) – February 27, 1987 5 ! )*! Long Beach Marine Stadium California Historical Landmark (CHL) # 1014 6 Griffith Park- Riverside Drive Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (LA HCM) #942 7 Potential Designation Sites A number of venues utilized during the Xth Olympiad possess no landmark status at the local, state or national level. By selecting buildings and sites with the greatest potential – and the least recognition – to become a landmark or place of commemoration, three venues have been chosen. In identifying and focusing on only a few venues will provide a foundation for future research. The prospective designation sites are listed below: Grand Olympic Auditorium California Register of Historical Resources and/or Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument Los Angeles Police Academy California Register of Historical Resources and/or Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument ! )+! Memorial Gateway at Exposition Park California Register of Historical Resources and/or Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument Three Major Questions Before delving into a synopsis of historic resource findings, three major questions remain: Why where these three sites chosen? To whom are they important? Above all else, how have they changed the cultural and urban landscape of Los Angeles? Criteria for Evaluation Any potential historic resource within the city of Los Angeles is evaluated under one or more standard sets of criteria of significance. These criteria correspond to designations at the local, state and federal level. To be considered eligible for any landmark designation, whether it is for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (LA HCM), a property must fulfill one or more of the registration criteria. In addition to meeting registration requirements, a property must maintain enough integrity convey its potential significance. ! ),! Historic Integrity Properties that are of historic significance either retain integrity or not. For a property to retain historic integrity, it must obtain at least one or more of the seven aspects of integrity are listed below: 8 Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. The design results from decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. It refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. ! )-! Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. The three venues selected as prospective designation sites were based primarily on a lack of recognition in terms of both scholarly research and significant knowledge of their existence within their respective communities. Though each site and structure are not necessarily at risk for demolition or reconstruction for the time being, it is imperative to recognize the conditions of these locales before it is too late. By focusing solely on three sites, a much more concentrated effort was made to establish a strong case for future landmark nominations. ! *.! In addressing whom these sites are important to, the decisive factors are twofold. Who finds these venues significant and what does it mean to them? The distinction of these locales are worthy of being acknowledged by not only those whose interests lie in local and/or sports history, but also by those who live, work and play in these communities. To draw attention to such a significant structure or site could possibly promote future community involvement and promote tourism. Perhaps the question of all questions is this: Have these three chosen sites really, truly changed the Los Angeles landscape, in terms of urban and cultural context? Though their impact in the history of Los Angeles may not be of the same caliber as the Memorial Coliseum, these venues have played minor roles in the bigger picture. Specific - and highly objective – criteria must be met in order for a property to become eligible for designation at the local, state or national level. When it comes down to distinguishing levels of significance, does it really matter whether or not a site has the city/state/national stamp of approval? There is some level of significance that can be associated with these sites, and if they get the opportunity to share that association and perspective with others, their roles will make a noteworthy addition to the bigger picture. ! *%! Summary of Historic Resource Findings Grand Olympic Auditorium: 1801 South Grand Avenue Through further research within the archives of the Los Angeles Times, a digitized copy of the 2004 SHPO Historic Resource Evaluation surfaced. It presents a thorough overview and concern in regards to the Exposition Light Rail Transit Project. 9 According to the Evaluation, a list of ten historic properties has been identified within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). One of the historic properties is the Olympic Auditorium. As stated on page 8 of the Evaluation, the Olympic Auditorium is eligible for the NRHP under the criterion A for its association with the 1932 Olympic Games. The period of significance for the Auditorium dates from when it was first constructed in 1925, to the conclusion of the Games in 1932. The property does not fulfill criterion C due to substantial modifications to exterior wall treatments over its history. Because this Historic Resource Survey was drafted a year before the Korean Glory Church of Christ purchased the Auditorium, 10 it does not make note of further changes to the exterior walls, nor the drastic changes on the interior of the property. By loosely following the format of a DPR 523 form, two field visits to the site were conducted to assess the condition of the Auditorium. ! *&! Figure 17. Grand Olympic Auditorium. Northeast view at 18 th /South Grand. (Image courtesy of the author.) Building Description The Grand Olympic Auditorium is located at the southwest intersection of Grand Avenue and 18 th Street to the south of downtown Los Angeles. The property contains a large structure of concrete construction. Rectangular in plan, the massive block is designed in the Art Deco style. It has an asphalt composition roof. There are stepped parapets at the east and west sides of the building. The exterior walls are clad with smooth stucco. Fenestration consists primarily of non-original aluminum sliding windows. The overall condition of the building is very good, but due to the construction of the I-10 Freeway in the late 1950s, its setting has been greatly affected. Character-defining features of the building include but are not limited to the boxy volume with few window openings, multiple grade-level egress doors, segmental arches above the entryways, and decorative pilasters over the (former) ! *'! main entrances. (See Appendix D.) The property is in good condition. The integrity is fair due to the removal of Olympic related decoration. Period of Significance (1924-1932) Dedicated in 1924, the Grand Olympic Auditorium is significant for its association with the 1932 Summer Olympics. As a pet project of Frank A. Garbutt and the Los Angeles Athletic Club, it was nicknamed “The Olympic” in anticipation for the Games. The structure opened its doors in 1925 to an audience that included the likes of Rudolph Valentine, Sid Grauman, Sol Lesser and Jack Dempsey. 11 Renowned architect Gilbert Stanley Underwood designed building in the Art Deco style with elements of Italian Renaissance Revival. Underwood opened an office in Los Angeles after graduating from Harvard in 1923. Some of his recognized works within Los Angeles include Desmond’s Department Store on Miracle Mile, the U.S. Post Office Terminal Annex on Alameda Street, and the U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse on Spring Street. 12 Primarily recognized for distinguishing National Park Service architecture, or “parkitecture”, Underwood’s notable rustic style can be found in his famous lodge complexes at Zion National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Yosemite National Park. 13 ! *(! With tiered seating for 10,000 spectators, the Olympic Auditorium was the largest boxing venue in the United States at the time of its construction. Dubbed the “Mecca of Boxing”, the Olympic promoted fights decades after the Xth Olympiad. Considered one of Hollywood’s “busiest studios”, almost every fight movie has been partially shot in its ring. By 1980, the Los Angeles Athletic Club sold the building to developer Jack Needleman. The Olympic closed unofficially in 1987, and barely stayed afloat by hosting occasional concerts or film shoots. After a $5 million renovation in 1994, it re-opened to a much smaller boxing audience. 14 In 2005, the Olympic found itself a new owner and a new name. Purchased for approximately $25 million, the Korean Glory Church of Christ adapted the auditorium as its new church. Without the boxing ring, the newly revamped space provided 12,000 square feet of worship space and 7,000 seats still arranged in an amphitheater style. The Grand Olympic Auditorium – now Glory Church of Christ - has been added to a list of congregations that have taken residence in other historic non-religious structures, such as the Los Angeles University Cathedral formerly in the United Artists Theater downtown, and the Faithful Central Bible Church formerly in the Forum in Inglewood. 15 As stated earlier, the construction of the I-10 freeway has greatly affected the historic setting of the Grand Olympic Auditorium. The historic north and east ! *)! facades of the building have lost a portion of their integrity due to the removal of the marquees over the main entrances. The Auditorium itself sits on the northeast corner of the block-long property. The remainder of the property is gated with a tall metal fence and dense vegetation. Actual access into the Auditorium is only permitted through the gated area. The structure’s current entrances are located on the south and west sides of the building, with the former entrances appearing to be used only as emergency exits. With the exception of modern additions such as security cameras and lighting, satellite dishes and HVAC equipment, the extant exterior features of the Grand Olympic Auditorium is significant for its association with the 1932 Summer Olympics. Aspects of Integrity Location, Association Applicable Criteria National Register: Criterion A – Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history California Register: Criterion 1 – Any association with an event that has made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history in California or the United States Los Angeles HCM: Association with important historic events that shaped the growth, development or evolution of Los Angeles ! **! Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club: 1880 Academy Drive Due to limited visitor access to the Academy, an officer from the Facilities Management Division was considerate enough to arrange a brief tour of the range. Figure 18. View from second level facing northeast. (Image courtesy of the author.) Building Description The Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club is located within the Los Angeles Police Academy campus in Elysian Park. Built in 1925,the site is an outdoor shooting range comprised of a two-story firing point and twenty firing lanes. The firing point is rectangular in plan and is made of wood frame construction. An L-shaped concrete stairwell to the southeast of the firing point ! *+! leads to the second level. A stucco parapet wall on three sides surrounds the upper level; the northeast side faces the target wall and contains a low wooden railing. The southwest façade of the range was a later addition constructed with concrete arches and smooth stucco in the Mission style. Due to multiple additions and alterations over time, the walkway on the ground level was been recast with smooth concrete, along with metal railings beneath the arches and the construction of a protective fiberglass and concrete barrier facing the firing lanes. The groundcovers of the firing lanes consist of asphalt aisles and gravel to prevent bullet ricochet. A concrete retaining wall provides the backstop for targets. Called an impact berm, it is heavily padded by an additional rubberized retaining wall. The surround landscape is densely wooded to prevent noise and wind interference. 16 Character-defining features of the site include but are not limited to the location of the firing point and the southwest façade. The site is in fair condition. Integrity is poor. Period of Significance (1925-1936) Originally constructed in 1925, a shooting range located on 21 acres in Elysian Park. The Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club (LAPRAAC) provided a standardized method of training for new members of the LAPD. In 1931, LAPRAAC granted access to the LAOOC to use the grounds as the site for ! *,! shooting and pistol competitions during the 1932 Olympic Games. In accordance with the requirements of the International Shooting Federation, as well as the International Pentathlon Committee, the shooting range was slightly modified to meet official regulations. 17 After the completion of the Games of the Xth Olympiad, the LAOOC donated the Police Academy one of the large mess halls from the Olympic Village in Baldwin Hills. Uprooted from its original site, the mess hall was disassembled and relocated adjacent to the shooting range. Under Police Chief James E. Davis, the LAPRAAC evolved into the Police Academy that is recognized to this day. In 1936, the Police Academy was expanded under the designs of architect Peter Karl Schabarum. With an overall Mission style motif in mind, Schabarum’s additions called for a new gymnasium and other training facilities, alterations to the mess hall for a café, and the inclusion of a new façade for the shooting range. Due to the constricted space between the mess hall and the ramparts near the southwest entrance of the Academy, the mess hall was shortened approximately three feet to ensure the new gymnasium would meet building standards. 18 (See Appendix E.) The mess hall barely retains its original massing, it has undergone several alterations and fair to poor maintenance over the years. While both the firing range and the mess hall have strong ties associated with the 1932 Games, one does not affect the historic integrity of the other. It must be ! *-! clarified that the shooting range is eligible for designation at the national, state and local level for its association with the Xth Olympiad. This connection is upheld by its setting and original location. Though the mess hall retains an equally significant association with the Games, the structure’s deconstruction, relocation, reconstruction and heavy modifications over time have compromised its integrity. Aspects of Integrity Location, Setting, Association Applicable Criteria National Register: Criterion A – Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history California Register: Criterion 1 – Any association with an event that has made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history in California or the United States Los Angeles HCM: Association with important historic events that shaped the growth, development or evolution of Los Angeles Memorial Gateway Sculpture: Exposition Park As a part of the ten historic properties identified within the 2004 SHPO Historic Resource Survey, the Memorial Gateway at the Rose Garden is a contributing ! +.! element to the Exposition Park Historic District. Two sites within the district, the Natural History Museum and the Rose Garden, are listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places. 19 Figure 19. Memorial Gateway Bas Relief Panel, Bartholomew Mako. (Image courtesy of the author.) Object Description The Memorial Gateway Sculpture is located at the Exposition Boulevard entrance to the Rose Garden in Exposition Park. Across the street from the main entrance at USC, the Gateway is comprised of two symmetrical torches, concrete benches that line the pathway towards the Garden, and two large bas-relief panels. The torches are made of bronze, as are the commemorative plaques that adorn the base of each torch. 20 Along the lower corners of the bronze plaques is evidence of concentrated water runoff due to the oxidized copper stains on the concrete. ! +%! Minor cracks are evident around the torch bases, and most have been patched with a close-matching color epoxy. The concrete benches that parallel the length of the walkway are in good condition, although modern garbage bins intermittently placed interrupts their continuity. Two large bas-relief sculptures facing east and west flank the entrance to the Rose Garden. They both depict Ancient and Modern Olympians in an Art Deco style. 21 (See Figure 18.) The panels themselves are in very good condition, but the blank lower halves of each relief sculpture shows signs of vandalism and poor maintenance. This is apparent in the discoloration of the concrete due to graffiti, sandblasting, and/or weather deterioration. Concrete benches are adjacent to the sculptures, and also show signs of age and poor maintenance. Large trees provide shade over the relief sculptures, but fallen leaves and other debris tend to gather at the corners of where the benches meet the sculptures. (See Appendix F.) Character-defining features include but are not limited to the bronze torches and the bas-relief sculpture panels. The objects are in fair condition. Integrity is very good. ! +&! Period of Significance (1931-1932) Designed by Bartholomew Mako in 1931, the Memorial Gateway is located at the north entrance of the Rose Garden in Exposition Park. It was built to commemorate the Games of the Xth Olympiad. The two bas-relief panels depict Olympians from both the Ancient and Modern Games. Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1890, Mako received formal training at the Budapest Academy of Fine Arts. In 1923, Mako and his family moved to Los Angeles. Despite the setbacks of Depression-era Hollywood, Mako was commissioned to paint film promotions by the likes of Sid Grauman and Tony Moreno. 22 By the mid-1930s, Mako was hired as an artist under the New Deal’s Federal Arts Projects. Some of his work includes murals at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, Burbank City Hall, St. Sophia Greek Orthodox Church, and friezes at Hollywood High School, Hollywood Post Office, Ventura College and Whittier College. 23 Aspects of Integrity Location, Design, Materials, Association, Workmanship, Setting Applicable Criteria National Register: Criterion A – Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history ! +'! California Register: Criterion 1 – Any association with an event that has made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history in California or the United States Los Angeles HCM: Association with important historic events that shaped the growth, development or evolution of Los Angeles The Preservation of Memory As presented in the previous paragraphs, there is very little recognition of the physical legacy of the Xth Olympiad. Out of the three sites that have been assessed, perhaps only the Grand Olympic Auditorium and the Los Angeles Police Academy Shooting Range have the greatest chances of becoming officially designated. But what of the Memorial Gateway? It may not have housed the nation’s finest heavyweights, or trained the city’s police force for sixty years, but it lies within such a blatantly obvious locale that passersby should take the time to really appreciate it for what it is. For the numerous other sites and venues that did not make the “unofficial” shortlist for landmark designation, it does not necessarily mean they were not worthy of consideration. Some of the properties, such as the Swim Stadium, Long Beach Marine Stadium, or the Riviera Country Club still retain strong associations with the 1932 Games. Their histories – along with other Olympic venues that fall into the same category – can and should be commemorated in an ! +(! alternative fashion. That can range from annual celebrations, a historic plaque program, or walking tours of the neighborhood. Just as the heritage of the 1932 Games are often overshadowed by the recent history of the 1984 Games, the early stages of the Modern Olympic Movement should equally be acknowledged. ! +)! Chapter 4 Endnotes __________________ 1. James H. Charleton, “Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, National Park Service, June 21, 1984, http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/84003866.pdf. 2. “Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum,” National Historic Landmarks Program, National Park Service, http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1884&ResourceType=Structure. 3. “California Historical Landmarks,” California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21427. 4. James H. Charleton, “The Rose Bowl,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form, National Park Service, October 18, 1984, http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/87000755.pdf. 5. “Rose Bowl,” National Historic Landmarks Program, National Park Service, http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=1971&resourceType=Structure. 6. “California Historical Landmarks,” California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21427. 7. “Historic-Cultural Monument List,” Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles, (April 16, 2012, http://preservation.lacity.org/files/HCMDatabase041612.pdf. 8. “Integrity,” National Register Bulletin, National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb34/nrb34_8.htm. 9. “Cultural Heritage Master Plan Review Draft,” Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles, March 7, 2000: 40. http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/CH%20Master%20Plan%20Chapter%203.pdf. 10. “California Register,” California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238. 11. “Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments – Q & A,” Los Angeles Conservancy: LandmarkTHIS!, http://www.laconservancy.org/preservation/1-2%20HCM-Q&A.pdf. 12. “Appendix G: SHPO Historic Resources Evaluation,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, December 10, 2004, http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/eirs/Expo/docsExpoP1FEIR/Appendix%20G%20SHP O%20Historic%20Resources%20Evaluation%20Revised.pdf. 13. Connie Kang, “From Old Boxing Arena to a House of Worship,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2005, national edition. 14. David Israel, “A Dream House,” Sports Illustrated, July 1982, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1125687/6/index.html. 15. “Appendix G: SHPO Historic Resources Evaluation,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, December 10, 2004, ! +*! http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/eirs/Expo/docsExpoP1FEIR/Appendix%20G%20SHP O%20Historic%20Resources%20Evaluation%20Revised.pdf. 16. Rodd L. Wheaton, “Gilbert Stanley Underwood: 1890-1960,” National Park Service: The First 75 Years, December 2000. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/sontag/underwood.htm. 17. Connie Kang, “From Old Boxing Arena to a House of Worship,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2005, national edition. 18. Ibid. 19. Larry D. Wilcher, “Range Design Criteria,” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Health, Safety and Security, June 4, 2012. http://www.hss.energy.gov/SecPolicy/pfs/Range_Design_Criteria.pdf. 20. “Appendix G: SHPO Historic Resources Evaluation,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, December 10, 2004, http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/eirs/Expo/docsExpoP1FEIR/Appendix%20G%20SHP O%20Historic%20Resources%20Evaluation%20Revised.pdf. 21. “Memorial Gateway to Exposition Park,” Public Art in LA, http://www.publicartinla.com/Expopark/memorial_gateway1.html. 22. “A Father’s Lessons, a Son’s Gratitude: The Legacy of Bartholomew Mako,” Mullberry Tree: St. Mary’s College of Maryland, Summer 2006. http://www.smcm.edu/mulberrytree/_assets/PDF/summer06/summer06/fatherslesson.pdf. 23. Los Angeles Time, “Services Set for Artist Bartholomew Mako, 79,” Jan. 9, 1970. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ++! CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION Introduction The urban fabric of Los Angeles during the 1932 Games represented the early evolution of a built environment that was influenced by tourism and the promotion of place. Today, extant sites and venues utilized during the Xth Olympiad provide the only tangible evidence of the Games. Aside from the physical remnants of the Xth Olympiad, how does one consider the intangible evidence of the Games: How can we preserve the memory of the 1932 Olympics? The foundation for future research has been laid out. As the framework for a potential historic context statement, this study of extant and non-extant venues can provide the next steps towards designation and commemoration. Further study on these sites may benefit by looking to other historical contexts of similar building typologies utilized in other Olympiads. In this way, comparisons could be made to see what has and has not worked in terms of preservation and commemoration after an Olympic Game has taken place. A Question of Integrity Although a limited number of venues utilized during the 1932 Olympic are designated at either the local, state and/or national level, other sites and buildings do provide a sense of Olympic history, albeit at a smaller scale. Does this mean that buildings and sites, which have either been moved, rehabilitated ! +,! or demolished, are of lesser significance than say, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Bowl? While greatly outbalanced when compared to the tiny Olympic Village bungalow-turned-Olvera Street souvenir stand, each venue is significant in their own right, whether it is official or not. Unlike the formality that comes with an official landmark status, commemoration offers an alternative way to interpret sites and venues that may not be eligible at the local, state or national level. Much more inclusive, alternative commemoration can be applied to many of the venues from the 1932 Games since there is no need to meet a specific set of criteria. Forms of commemoration and interpretation can vary from visual art installations, self- guided walking tours, or smart phone applications. Alternatives to Landmark Designation The preceding chapter established the current condition of numerous sites and venues from the Xth Olympiad are varied in terms of integrity and original use. With a current building inventory established, further research on extant venues could address key issues such as the growth of public and private support, and the formation and development of an interpretive preservation and management program. Due to the vastness of extant sites scattered throughout the city and county, individual interpretive programs could be developed in parts – that is, a program (whether it is visual/oral/digital/volunteer or non-profit) that presents ! +-! the Olympic story in regards to the surrounding area, utilizes the extant historic resource, and promotes further interpretive improvements to the site. One such innovative way to memorialize the Xth Olympiad could be to develop a form of “Olympic Route/Trail/Pilgrimage” such as the Freedom Trail in Boston. 1 In an era where there is an “app” for nearly everything, this concept could either exist as a physical self-guided walking/driving/public transportation “tour”, or a digital version that could be accessible via Google Maps or in composite photographs such as Shawn Clover’s San Francisco photo series, “1906 + Today: The Earthquake Blend.” 2 Fortunately, Los Angeles already has an established self-guided walking tour program: Angel’s Walk LA, a foundation dedicated to celebrating the vast architectural and culture history of the city, and for encouraging the urban experience from a pedestrian point of view. 3 Walks - signified by stanchions - are information stations relaying the history of a significant area that can easily be found along main thoroughfares around the city: Figueroa, Bunker Hill, Chinatown, Wilshire, and Union Station among others. ! ,.! For locals, an interpretive program similar to Angel’s Walk for extant venues from the Xth Olympiad could provide the chance to link local Olympic history with the future of the community. By establishing good stewardship of historic venues and sites, and promoting the importance of civic pride at the local level, the future of these venues could help strengthen the Olympic legacy and re- establish the collective memory of the 1932 Los Angeles Games. ! ,%! Chapter 5 Endnotes __________________ 1. The Freedom Trail Foundation, “The Freedom Trail, http://thefreedomtrail.org/. 2. Shawn Clover, “1906 + Today: The Earthquake Blend,”. http://shawnclover.com/2012/08/17/1906-today-the-earthquake-blend-part-ii/. 3. Angels Walk LA, http://www.angelswalkla.org/walks.html. ! ,&! BIBLIOGRAPHY “1932 Los Angeles Olympics.” International Olympic Committee. http://www.olympic.org/los-angeles-1932-summer-olympics. Amero, Richard W. “The Making of the Panama-California Exposition, 1909- 1915.” The Journal of San Diego History 36, no. 1 (Winter 1990). Angels Walk LA. http://www.angelswalkla.org/walks.html. “Appendix G: SHPO Historic Resources Evaluation.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. December 10, 2004. http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/eirs/Expo/docsExpoP1FEIR/ Appendix%20G%20SHPO%20Historic%20Resources%20Evaluation%20Re vised.pdf. Barney, Robert K. “Resistance, persistence, providence: The 1932 Los Angeles Olympic Games in perspective.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 67, no. 2 (June 1996): 148-160. Berges, Marshall. “The Coliseum a Tribute to L.A.’s Endless Quest for Civic Improvement.” Los Angeles Times, July 29 1984. Burbank, Matthew, Gregory Andranovich and Charles Heying. Olympic Dreams: The Impact of Mega-Events on Local Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 2001. Chalkley, Brian and Stephen Essex. “Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games.” Planning Perspectives 14 (1999): 370. Charleton, James H. “Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory- Nomination Form”.http://landmarkwatch.org/PDF/ColiseumNHL.pdf. Clover, Shawn. “1906 + Today: The Earthquake Blend.” http://shawnclover.com/2012/08/17/1906-today-the-earthquake-blend- part-ii/. “Coliseum National Historic Landmark.” http://landmarkwatch.org/PDF/Coliseum NHL.pdf. Delapp, Terrel. “End of Olympic Village Near.” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14, 1932, E5. ! ,'! Dinces, Sean. “Padres on Mount Olympus: Los Angeles and the Production of the 1932 Olympic Mega-Event.” Journal of Sport History (Summer 2005): 137-165. Dyreson, Mark. “Marketing National Identity: The Olympic Games of 1932 and American Culture.” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies IV (1995): 23-48. Dyreson, Mark and Matthew Llewellyn. “Los Angeles is the Olympic City.” History of Sport 25, no. 14 (2008). Epting, Chris. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Chicago, IL: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. “A Father’s Lessons, a Son’s Gratitude: The Legacy of Bartholomew Mako.” Mullberry Tree: St. Mary’s College of Maryland. Summer 2006. http://www.smcm.edu/mulberrytree/_assets/PDF/summer06/summer 06/fatherslesson.pdf. FIFA Fact Sheet. “Overview of all the FIFA World Cup host countries, 1930- 2022.” FIFA. (December 2005). http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompovw/51/99/03 /133485-factsheet-fifahostcountriesoverview1930-2022.pdf. Findling, John E. and Kimberly Pelle. Historical Dictionary of the Modern Olympic Movement. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Groups, 1996. Freedom Trail Foundation. “The Freedom Trail.” http://thefreedomtrail.org/. The Games of the Xth Olympiad: Los Angeles 1932 Official Report. Los Angeles, CA: Xth Olympiad Committee, 1933. Glasser, Susan. “Exhibition Features Hungarian Artist, Hall of Fame Tennis Player.” River Gazette (January 2005): 14. http://www.smcm.edu/rivergazette/_assets/PDF/jan05/calendar.pdf. “History.” La Casita del Arroyo. http://lacasitadelarroyo.org/?page_id=12. Israel, David. “A Dream House.” Sports Illustrated, July 1982. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1125687/ 6/index.htm. Kang, Connie. “From Old Boxing Arena to a House of Worship.” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2005, national edition. ! ,(! Kawakami, Tim. “Olympic Auditorium History.” Los Angeles Times, March 4, 1994, national edition. Kendrick, Megan. “Stay in L.A.: Hotels and the representation of urban public space in Los Angeles, 1880s-1950s.” PhD diss., University of Southern California, 2009. Keys, Barbara. Globalizing Sport: National Rivalry and International Community in the 1930s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Konik, Michael. “Kings of Clubs.” Los Angeles Magazine 43, no. 4 (April 1998). Lewis Publishing Company. “William May Garland.” California and Californians IV (1932): 46-47. http://files.usgwarchives.net/ca/losangeles/bios/garland1013gbs.txt. Levermore, Roger and Adrian Budd. Sport and International Relations: An Emerging Relationship. New York: Routledge, 2004. Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club. Personal interview. January 28, 2012. Los Angeles Times. “Building of Olympic Houses Starts.” April 7 1932, A2. Los Angeles Times. “Camp Baldy Has Dozen New Cabins.” June 23 1933, A10. Los Angeles Times. “C.C. Chapman Dies at Ranch.” April 7 1994, A1. Los Angeles Times. “Club Made Keeper of Bungalow: Olympic Village Cottage Donated to Rotary, Under Care of Breakfasters.” September 15 1932, 18. Los Angeles Times. “Japan Gets Gift from Olympiad.” November 28 1932, 14. Los Angeles Times. “’Lucky’ Baldwin Heiress Passes.” February 28 1929, A1. Los Angeles Times. “Olympic City Units Shipped Far and Wide.” February 3 1933, A1. Los Angeles Times. “Olympic Remnants to Go Under Hammer.” December 11 1932, A3. Los Angeles Times. “Services Set for Artist Bartholomew Mako, 79.” Jan. 9, 1970. Los Angeles Times. “Town Mapped for Olympiad.” March 22 1932, A1. ! ,)! Los Angeles Times. “Unique Community Center Will Be Populated by Participants in Tenth Olympiad Next Summer.” April 3 1932, A1. Los Angeles Times. “Zack Farmer; Sports Leader.” January 18 1968, C18. LSA Associates, Inc. “4.4 Cultural and Historic Resources.” Draft EIR: Alamitos Bay Marina Rehabilitation Project, City of Long Beach. October 2009: 1-9. http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3142. McCoy, Esther. Five California Architects. New York, NY: Praeger Press, 1960. McLeod, Paul. “Homage to 60 Golden Years of Marine Stadium’s Waterway.” Los Angeles Times, August 7, 1992. “Memorial Gateway to Exposition Park.” Public Art in LA. http://www.publicartinla.com/Expopark/memorial_gateway1.html. Michelson, Alan. “Chapman Plaza Hotel, Los Angeles, CA.” Pacific Coast Architecture Database. 2012. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/architect/structures/1402/. “OHP Preferred Format for Historic Context Statements.” California State Office of Historic Preservation. http://parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/format%20for%20historic%20cont ext%20statements.pdf. “Introduction: A Brief History.” The Panama Pacific International Exposition. http://www.sanfranciscomemories.com/ppie/history.html. “Paving the Way: The Stories Behind the Names of L.A.’s Streets.” http://heritagesquare.org/blog/paving-the-way-the-stories-behind-the- names-of-l-a-s-streets. Pieroth, Doris Hinson. Their Day in the Sun: Women of the 1932 Olympics. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996. Pope, John. “Long Beach: Marine Stadium Earns Landmark Status.” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 11, 1994. Riess, Steven A. “Power Without Authority: Los Angeles’ Elites and the Construction of the Coliseum.” Journal of Sport History 8, no. 1 (Spring 1981) ! ,*! Roche, Maurice. “Mega-events and micro-modernization: on the sociology of the new urban tourism.” BJS 43, no. 4 (December 1992): 564-600. _____. Mega-events and Modernity: Olympics and expos in the growth of global culture. New York: Routledge, 2000. Ronnie, Art. “Life and Death of a Village.” Westways 52 (August 1960). Shaikin, Bill. Sport and Politics: The Olympics and the Los Angeles Games. New York: Praeger, 1988. Short, J.R. Global Metropolitan: Globalizing Cities in a Capitalist World. London: Routledge, 86-108. Spiegel, Claire. “Back in Vogue: Landscapers Fan Out for Palm Trees.” Los Angeles Times, May 23, 1987, national edition. Starr, Kevin. The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. “State Armory Building.” http://you-are-here.com/downtown/armory.html. Stump, Al. “1932: The ‘Hopeless’ Dream of William May Garland.” Olympic Review 274 (1990): 381-387. _________. “The Olympics That Almost Wasn’t.” American Heritage 33, no. 5 (August/September 1982). Tomlinson, Alan, and Christopher Young. National Identity and Global Sports Events: Culture, Politics, and Spectacle in the Olympics and the Football World Cup. New York: SUNY Press, 2006. Turner, Michelle L. and Pasadena Museum of History. The Rose Bowl. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2010. Welky, David B. “Viking Girls, Mermaids, and Little Brown Men: U.S. Journalism and the 1932 Olympics.” Journal of Sport History 24, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 24-49. Wheaton, Rodd. L. “Gilbert Stanley Underwood: 1890-1960.” National Park Service: The First 75 Years. December 2000. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/sontag/underwood.htm. ! ,+! White, Jeremy. “The Los Angeles Way of Doing Things: The Olympic Village and the Practice of Boosterism in 1932.” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies XI (2002): 79-116. _____. “Constructing the invisible landscape: Organizing the 1932 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2005. “William May Garland.” Olympic Review. http://www.la84foundation.org/OlympicInformationCenter/OlympicRe view/1948/BDCE12/DCE12f.pdf. Williams, Harry. Los Angeles Times. “Meadowbrook Planned Here”, Dec. 10, 1931. Wilcher, Larry D. “Range Design Criteria.” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Health, Safety and Security. June 4, 2012. http://www.hss.energy.gov/SecPolicy/pfs/Range_Design_Criteria.pdf. Zaitlin, Joyce. “Olympic Auditorium.” Los Angeles Times, March 13 1994, national edition. ! ,,! APPENDIX A: Olympic Host Cities Prior to 1932 (Image courtesy of the author.) ! ,-! APPENDIX B: Olympic Infographic ( (Image courtesy of the author.) ! -.! APPENDIX C: Map of Olympic Venues (Image courtesy of Google Maps and the author.) ! -%! APPENDIX D: Additional Images of Grand Olympic Auditorium ! "#$%&'!()!/0123!45678"9!:;3"<=0";7>!?@71AB! 9=;0<BC6!=D!<EB!F=C!:2AB5BC!G;H5"9!F"H0106>I! "#$%&'!*)!/5=06!JE;09E!=D!JE0"C<K!L16!&.%&>! ?@71AB!9=;0<BC6!=D!1;<E=0>I! "#$%&'!+)!L18!CE=M"2A!5=91<"=2!=D!/0123!:;3"<=0";7>!?@71AB! 9=;0<BC6!=D!/==A5B!L18C>I! ! "#$%&',!-./)!NB<1"5!95=CBO;8C!=D!C<;99=!M=0P>! ?@71ABC!9=;0<BC6!=D!<EB!1;<E=0>I! "#$%&'!-)! "#$%&'!0)! "#$%&'!/)! ! -&! APPENDIX E: Additional Images of the Los Angeles Police Academy "#$%&'!()!L18!CE=M"2A!5=91<"=2!=D!F=C!:2AB5BC!G=5"9B!:913B76>!?@71AB!9=;0<BC6!=D!/==A5B!L18CKI! "#$%&'!*)! "#$%&'!+)! ! "#$%&',!*.+)!Q=07B0!3"2"2A!0==7!D0=7!<EB! 45678"9!R"551AB!9=2#B0<B3!"2<=!<EB!G=5"9B! :913B76!J1DS>!?@71ABC!9=;0<BC6!=D!<EB!1;<E=0! 123!!"#$%&&'(')*$+#,-./>I!! "#$%&'!-)!T15PM16!HB<MBB2!<EB!C=;<E!D1U13B! 123!<EB!D"0"2A!8="2<>!! ?@71AB!9=;0<BC6!=D!<EB!1;<E=0>I! "#$%&'!-)! ! -'! APPENDIX F: Additional Images of the Memorial Gateway Sculptures "#$%&'!()!V1COWB5"BDK!%-'&>!?@71AB!9=;0<BC6!=D! <EB!F=C!:2AB5BC!G;H5"9!F"H0106>I! "#$%&'!*)!V1COWB5"BDK!&.%&>!?@71AB!9=;0<BC6!=D!<EB! 1;<E=0>I! ! -(! APPENDIX G: Building Assessment ! -)! APPENDIX H: Venue Attributes ! ! !

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Building on the hillside: community planner and architect Franz Herding (1887–1927)

PDF

Preserving California City: an exploration into the city plan preservation of a mid-century, master-planned community

PDF

Keeping a historic collegiate stadium viable: best practices for the historic Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum rehabilitation

PDF

Mussolini's Rome: how the city changed with the rise and fall of the Duce

PDF

Heritage conservation in post-redevelopment Los Angeles: evaluating the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the historic built environment

PDF

Sawtelle reexamined: a preservation study for a historic California Japantown

PDF

Cuerda seca ceramic tiles: explorations of resist formulas in various firing ranges

PDF

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

PDF

Greening historic districts with solar roofs: an exploration of Western Heights in Los Angeles

PDF

Maintaining historic integrity and solving a rehabilitation dilemma: the history of hollow clay tile and an argument for its preservation

PDF

A different kind of Eden: gay men, modernism, and the rebirth of Palm Springs

PDF

A life in landscape: Howard Oshiyama and the gardens of Buff & Hensman's King residence

PDF

Deconstruction: a tool for sustainable conservation

PDF

Historic preservation in the United States Air Force: exploring new frontiers

PDF

The lasting significance of the Naval Defense Station in World War II San Pedro

PDF

Mobilizing heritage conservation as a tool for urban resilience: linkages and recommendations

PDF

A survey of the public: preference for old and new buildings, attitudes about historic preservation, and preservation-related engagement

PDF

Who' s park: an architectural history of Westlake-MacArthur Park

PDF

Claud Beelman's corporate modern style 1951-1963

PDF

Celebrating conformity: preserving Henry Doelger's midcentury post-war suburb

Asset Metadata

Creator Amable, Ivy Marie (author)

Core Title Citius, altius, fortius: filling a void in the identification and designation of historic venues from the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Historic Preservation

Degree Program Historic Preservation

Publication Date 02/14/2013

Defense Date 02/01/2013

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

Tag 1932 Summer Olympics,Grand Olympic Auditorium,LAPRAAC,Los Angeles olympics,OAI-PMH Harvest,Olympic Village,Xth Olympiad

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Hall, Peyton (committee member), Platt, Jay (committee member)

Creator Email amable@usc.edu,ivprofin03@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-220142

Unique identifier UC11293678

Identifier usctheses-c3-220142 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AmableIvyM-1436.pdf

Dmrecord 220142

Document Type Thesis

Rights Amable, Ivy Marie

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 a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA