University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOLIDAY BOWL AND THE PROBLEM OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: A HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE STUDY by Kathryn E. Horak A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION August 2006 Copyright 2006 Kathryn E. Horak Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1441742 Copyright 2006 by Horak, Kathryn E. All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 1441742 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kathryn Horak Kenneth Briesch ABSTRACT HOLIDAY BOWL AND THE PROBLEM OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: A HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE STUDY Holiday Bowl was constructed in the Crenshaw District of Los Angeles in 1958. Initially it was patronized primarily by Japanese Americans, who relied heavily on bowling as a community-rebuilding tool after interment. As the ethnic mosaic of the Crenshaw neighborhood evolved, so did the clientele of Holiday Bowl. It soon became characterized by the peaceable coexistence of its diverse patrons, and served as a beloved community center to the Crenshaw neighborhood. The building was sold in 2000 and slated for demolition despite its undeniable cultural significance. The community fought for the preservation of the bowling center; however, the influence of commercial development on local politics won in favor of preservation. What made Holiday Bowl significant to its community? How could preservationists have better delineated these qualities in their argument for preservation of the bowling alley? And, how might preservationists more effectively identify and advocate for cultural significance in the future? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents List of Figures iii Abstract iv Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Cultural Conservation and the Protection of Cultural 5 Identity Chapter 2: Holiday Bowl: The Life and Death of one of Los 16 Angeles’s Preeminent Cultural Landmarks Chapter 3: Analysis of the Preservation Battle for Holiday Bowl 28 Chapter 4: Recommendations for the Identification, Preservation 43 and Commemoration of Culturally Significant Resources Recommendations for Change at the Federal Level 44 Recommendations for Change at the State Level 47 Recommendations for Change at the Local Level 48 Recommendations for Change in Advocacy 53 Recommendations for Private Sector Programs 55 Recommendations for Commemoration 57 Conclusion 61 Bibliography 66 Appendices Appendix A: Holiday Bowl: Chronology of Events 73 Appendix B: Selected Photographs 76 ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Figures Figure 1: The Holiday Bowl, 3730 Crenshaw Boulevard. 16 Figure 2: View of the Holiday Bowl coffee shop and sign after closure 28 and demolition of the bowling alley. Figure 3: Earvin “Magic” Johnson addresses the community at the grand 61 opening celebration of a new Starbucks, located in the Holiday Bowl coffee shop. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abstract Holiday Bowl was constructed in the Crenshaw District of Los Angeles in 1958. Initially it was patronized primarily by Japanese Americans, who relied heavily on bowling as a community-rebuilding tool after interment. As the ethnic mosaic of the Crenshaw neighborhood evolved, so did the clientele of Holiday Bowl. It soon became characterized by the peaceable coexistence of its diverse patrons, and served as a beloved community center to the Crenshaw neighborhood. The building was sold in 2000 and slated for demolition despite its undeniable cultural significance. The community fought for the preservation of the bowling center; however, the influence of commercial development on local politics won in favor of preservation. What made Holiday Bowl significant to its community? How could preservationists have better delineated these qualities in their argument for preservation of the bowling alley? And, how might preservationists more effectively identify and advocate for cultural significance in the future? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction What struck her immediately was that the coffee shop was filled mostly with old people, about equal numbers Asian and black. She had seen gatherings of elderly Asian people; she’d seen gatherings of elderly blacks; but never before had she seen the two in one place. It was such a surprise to her, so visually inconceivable, that it was if someone had taken footage of two senior citizens’ groups and then skillfully spliced them together.1 The above caption is excerpted from the novel Southland, by author Nina Revoyr. When asked what inspired her to write Southland, Ms. Revoyr cited a bowling alley in the Crenshaw District of Los Angeles as her primary inspiration. The first time she ate at the Holiday Bowl coffee shop, she knew she would one day write about it. “Elderly black people were eating with elderly Japanese people, arguing about the Dodgers and telling stories about the things they had done in their youth,” she said. “Unfortunately,” she went on to say, “it's about to be tom down now, despite community protests, in order to make room for a strip mall.”2 Holiday Bowl was demolished in 2003. The coffee shop portion and neon sign were left on the site, disembodied and vacant, and were quickly covered with graffiti and promotional movie posters. In 2006, the Coliseum Center strip mall was constructed on the former Holiday Bowl property. A Walgreens dmgstore now stands on the footprint of the bowling alley, and the coffee shop is the home of an Urban Coffee Opportunities Starbucks coffee retailer. 1 Nina Revoyr, Southland (New York: Akashic Books, 2003) 157. 2 Raul Deznermio, personal interview with Nina Revoyr, Akashic Books, 3 March 2005, <http://www.akashicbooks.com/ninaintv.htm>. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The destruction of Holiday Bowl was mitigated by the partial preservation and rehabilitation of the coffee shop portion of the building. This mitigation was initiated by City Council and thought of as appeasing preservationists and community members who advocated saving the bowling alley in its entirety. The Coalition to Save Holiday Bowl praised the building’s “Googie” features and its significance as a recreational and cultural center for Japanese and blacks alike. However, their call for preservation was up against the powerful machine of commercial real estate development and, in the end, partial preservation was seen by the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission and City Council as favorable to demolition of the entire building. Why was Holiday Bowl significant? Was it the design of the building itself, its distinct “Googie” characteristics? Or was it something less tangible: the use of the building as a recreational center in one of Los Angeles’s most integrated neighborhoods; the importance of the place to the Japanese population as they reconstructed their communities after internment; its status as an unusually peaceful community center in a crime ridden borough of Los Angeles? According to the Coalition to Save Holiday Bowl, it was significant for all of these reasons. However, the outcome of the preservation battle - the preservation of only the fa9ade of the coffee shop and the neon sign - is indicative of a preference for architectural style and material significance. The immaterial characteristics of the building have been lost forever. 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The preservation of immaterial (or intangible) cultural significance is a dilemma that has challenged preservation professionals for decades. The regulations and criteria that were developed with the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (and subsequently shaped federal and state preservation policies) are effective in the identification of material significance: architectural style, method of construction, and association with significant individuals and historic events. The codified criteria are less effective, however, at providing guidelines for the preservation of intangible cultural significance. The discipline of historic preservation runs parallel to its sister fields of anthropology, public history, American studies and cultural geography in what can be referred to as the evolving process of cultural resource management. With the passing of time, events and trends shift the focus of the interpretation of history. As this focus has turned its attention toward the social and cultural events that have shaped our history, preservationists have begun to recognize importance in resources that reflect similar values. However, the habit of preservation professionals, in both advocacy and in the evaluation of historical resources against federal and state preservation criteria, still appears to be a focus on architectural significance. In the words of a 1983 study initiated by the United States Department of the Interior, “the United States needs a consistent national system for cultural 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conservation.”3 The demolition of Holiday Bowl occurred on the twenty-year anniversary of this study, signifying that inadequate progress has been made in the interim. What are the intangible qualities that make places such as Holiday Bowl significant? How did the Coalition fail in delineating these qualities in their argument for the preservation of the bowling alley? And, how might preservationists more effectively identify and advocate for cultural significance in the future? 3 Ormond H. Loomis, coordinator, Cultural Conservation: the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the United States (Washington: Library of Congress, 1983) 3. 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 1: Cultural Conservation and the Protection of Cultural Identity The fate met by Holiday Bowl is not unusual in the world of historic preservation in the twenty-first century. Rather, it is representative of a plight that has faced the field since its ratification as a federal program in 1966. Historic preservation professionals have long grappled with the issue of how to preserve those resources that are significant for their intangible cultural qualities, for their “sense of place.” The story of Holiday Bowl simply serves as a reminder that those issues still exist. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 was implemented out of concern for the loss of historic properties -- architectural, archeological and cultural ~ in the United States. In addition to citing concern for the architectural treasures that are in constant jeopardy in a country as rapidly evolving as the United States, the NHPA cites concern for the American community. It states that “the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development.”4 Prior to the 1966 NHPA, the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Historic Sites Act of 1935 were passed to protect the Unites States’ many historic properties. The NHPA was a culmination of the concerns of the previous two mandates and the alarm generated by the widespread destruction of historic buildings during the unprecedented amount of postwar 4 “The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,” Public Law 102-575, Section 1, Part (b)(2), National Park Service, 24 May 2006, <http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/nhpal966.htm>. 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. development of the 1950s and early 1960s. It spawned not only the National Register of Historic Places (managed by the National Park Service) and Section 106, but a myriad of state-level processes dealing with historical resources. While most states had historic preservation programs prior to 1966, they were, for the most part, characterized by their limited scope and their diversity in size, content and approach. The NHPA offered a uniform model for such programming and initiated the appointment of a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in each of the fifty states. In the years after the passing of the NHPA, state preservation programs have generally been driven by the incentives, direction and philosophy of the national program.5 Although the groundwork laid by the NHPA appeared to take cultural landmarks into consideration, it soon became apparent to preservation professionals that the infrastructure was inept in dealing with intangible cultural significance. In practice, it seemed proficient mostly at protecting resources whose significance could be quantifiably recounted by the assessment of design elements and physical integrity. The legislation was quickly criticized for its apparent bias toward resources of high architectural style and those representing a white male history of the United States. One year after the passing of the 1966 NHPA, preservation professionals gathered at the Williamsburg Workshop II to discuss what they considered to be the 5 Robert E. Stipe, “Historic Preservation: The Process and the Actors,” The American Mosaic: Preserving a Nation’ s Heritage, eds. Robert E. Stipe and Antoinette J. Lee (Washington, D.C.: US/ICOMOS, 1987) 27. 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. inadequacies of the Act in its concern for the cultural context of historic properties. One account of the workshop included the following statement: “No longer is preservation simply a concern about isolated buildings destined for use as museums. People are now searching for ways to continue the useful lives of old and historic buildings, regarding them as integral parts of the community.”6 The findings of this workshop indicated a shift from the concern for isolated monuments to a new focus on the preservation of a “sense of place.” Cultural geographer Edward Relph describes “place” as “a whole phenomenon, consisting of the three intertwined elements of a specific landscape with both built and natural elements, a pattern of social activities that should be adapted to the advantages or virtues of a particular location, and a set of personal and shared meanings.”7 Historic preservation professionals are trained to identify those built and natural elements that are significant for their abilities to tell our national, state and local histories. However, when it comes to the identification of social patterns as they relate to the built environment, or of the personal or shared meanings associated with places within a community, where is the framework guiding preservationists? Generally speaking, it doesn’t exist. This lack of guidance for the identification of intangible significance continued to trouble preservationists throughout the late 1960s and 1970s. In 6 Elizabeth D. Mulloy, The History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1963-1973 (Washington D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1976) 89. 7 Edward Relph, “Modernity and the Reclamation of Place,” Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology, ed. David Seamon (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993) 34. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. response to this concern, an amendment was made to the NHPA in 1980 that o requested a study of “the intangible elements of our cultural heritage.” The study that resulted was a 1983 publication titled Cultural Conservation: The Protection o f Cultural Heritage in the United States, coordinated by Ormond H. Loomis. Cultural Conservation was bom out of recognition that the historic preservation program of 1966 “failed to provide clear coverage for the full range of cultural resources in the United States.”9 By “cultural resources,” the authors of the document were referring to those intangible elements of the country’s cultural heritage that are not physically embodied in structures or sites. Cultural identity is found in traditions, rituals, languages, religious ceremonies, recreational activities, arts and stories passed from generation to generation; or, what the authors referred to as a country’s “folk life.” How could the federal government support the preservation of these intangible qualities through the vehicle of the national historic preservation program? Cultural Conservation sought to find the answer to that question. The 1983 report recommended action primarily at the federal level, suggesting that the president and Congress commit to a national effort in support of 8 “The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,” Section 502: “The Secretary, in cooperation with the American Folklife Center of the Library of Congress shall, within two years after the date of the enactment of this act, submit a report to the President and the Congress on preserving and conserving the intangible elements of our cultural heritage such as arts, skills, folklife, and folkways. The report shall take into account the view of other public and private organizations, as appropriate. This report shall include recommendations for legislative and administrative actions by the Federal Government in order to preserve, conserve, and encourage the continuation of the diverse traditional prehistoric, historic, ethnic, and folk cultural traditions that underlie and are a living expression of our American heritage.” 9 Loomis, iii. 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cultural conservation. The intention of federal-level action was that change would trickle down to state and eventually local-level policies. Although the report was forwarded by then Secretary of the Interior James Watt to the president and Congress, the Department of the Interior did not push for further legislation based on its findings. This, combined with the conservative fiscal support for arts and humanities as instituted by the Reagan administration in the 1980s, resulted in little action on behalf of the federal government in the area of historic preservation.1 0 It wasn’t until 1990 that the National Park Service developed guidelines in response to the recommendations of the 1983 report. These guidelines were issued as National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, and were intended to be an aid in determining whether properties thought or alleged to have traditional cultural significance are eligible for the National Register.1 1 While the issuance of these guidelines represented a shift in the way that national preservation policy makers were thinking about historic significance, they were too narrow in their definition of “traditional cultural properties” and excluded all properties not associated with 1 0 “traditional” ethnic groups. 1 0 Alan Jabbour, “Folklife, Intangible Heritage, and the Promise and Perils of Cultural Cooperation,” A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-first Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003) 439. 1 1 Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Register Bulletin 38 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1990. Revised 1992, 1998). 1 2 This issue is discussed in greater length in Chapter Four of this document. 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The late 1980s represented a marked shift in the way that history was interpreted and represented across international lines. The publication of The American Mosaic in conjunction with the Eighth ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium held in Washington, D.C. in 1987; the passing of the Civil Rights Act in the United States in 1988; and the adoption of the Burra Charter1 3 (which provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance in Australia) in 1988 were all emblematic of a new focus on the social and cultural histories of the world’s nations. This trend made the crossover into all history related fields: public history, anthropology, archeology, American studies and historic preservation. These changes prompted historic preservation professionals in the late twentieth century to take a critical look at the role of preservation in a diverse and rapidly evolving country. Still without a codified framework for the identification and protection of cultural significance in the built environment, they began to think creatively about programs and symposia that may expose this deficiency in federal historic preservation policy while encouraging the development of solutions to resolve the problem of identifying and protecting intangible cultural significance. This issue reached its zenith in New York City in the late 1990s with the partial destruction of two of New York’s most important cultural landmarks: the African burial ground in lower Manhattan and the Ambassador Theater and 1 3 “The Burra Charter,” The International Council on Monuments and Sites- Australia Chapter, Australia/ICOMOS, 3 January 2006, <http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html>. 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ballroom in Harlem, which was the site of Malcolm X’s 1965 assassination. Both of these preservation movements generated an unprecedented level of popular mobilization. Long criticized for its selective attention to only the most prestigious and high style of the city’s architectural resources, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission began to feel pressure from preservation professionals and community members to afford protection to those resources that tell the truthful stories of New York’s social history. In response to these issues, the Municipal Art Society of New York coordinated a study and subsequent conference titled History Happened Here: A Plan for Saving New York City’ s Historically and Culturally Significant Sites. The 1996 study acknowledged that for many New Yorkers, “.. .historic preservation is - and should be - based on architectural beauty and significance. These values are not wrong, but they are too narrow.”1 4 The report called for action at all levels of government, including the need for a more diverse staff within the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. History Happened Here set the gauntlet for preservationists to band together to place pressure on local and national constituencies to expand the breadth of preservation policy to include cultural significance. In 1997, the National Council for Preservation Education in conjunction with the National Park Service and Goucher College organized a conference of preservation professionals 1 4 Ned Kaufman, History Happened Here: A Plan for Saving New York City’ s Historically and Culturally Significant Sites (discussion draft, Municipal Art Society of New York, November 1996) 6. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and educators titled, Preservation: O f What, For Whom? A Critical Look at Historical Significance. In her opening remarks at the conference, Katherine H. Stevenson, Associate Director of Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships at the National Park Service stated: “We are looking to YOU [preservation educators and professionals] to advise US on how you view historical significance and how these views should affect public policy - how the national historic preservation partnership should carry out its work.”1 5 In response to the findings and suggestions of these conferences, the National Park Service established the Cultural Resources Diversity Program in 1998. This program is devoted to diversifying the preservation field starting with a diverse workforce, the result being an increase in designated landmarks that represent the nation’s diverse population. The program is based on this tenet: “Our nation’s increasingly diverse population will influence how the nation sees its past; how it uses the past in the present and future; and, importantly, which historic places are identified, preserved, and interpreted for future generations.”1 6 Although the Cultural Resources Diversity Program is a useful and proven method for diversifying the historically Anglo-dominated field of historic preservation, it is not effective as a pragmatic tool for the identification and 1 5 Michael A. Tomlan, ed., Preservation: O f What? For Whom? (Ithaca: The National Council for Historic Preservation Education, 1998) 15. 1 6 “Cultural Resource Diversity Program,” National Park Service, 16 February 2006, <http://www.cr.nps.gov/crdi/ description/prgm.htm> . 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. protection of culturally significant sites. In this area, historic preservation policy at the federal level down to the local level still fails to provide guidance. This brief history of cultural conservation within the preservation movement has been provided to offer context for the case study that will be outlined in the following pages of this document. The demolition of Holiday Bowl occurred after years of dialogue and efforts made by preservation professionals, educators and policy makers to develop guidelines for the protection of culturally significant sites. Despite these efforts, the story of the Holiday Bowl indicates that there is still much progress to be made. Why has it been so difficult to develop policies that would delineate guidelines for the protection of culturally significant sites? For one, the words themselves - “culturally significant” - are inherently ambiguous. What do preservationists mean when they speak of “cultural landmarks?” The definition Ned Kaufman offered when drafting History Happened Here sums it up perfectly. Kaufman states: “It is a place where something can be understood, remembered, or retold especially because of the physical survival of a structure or landscape. It may also be a place where vital traditions, carried over from the past, are still being enacted... a reminder that history not only happened but is still happening there, • 17 and that the past is connected to the present.” 1 7 Kaufman, 4. 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This definition implies that not only is cultural significance intangible, it is dynamic. Whereas physical buildings are static - they can be preserved in time to represent history - cultural significance is by nature ever-changing. It may be the ways certain buildings are used by a community, or their association with an ongoing ritual, activity or ceremony. These elements are not only intangible, but they are often only interpretable by the community itself. For historic preservationists, this presents a tremendous challenge. The initial goal of historic preservation was to protect physical fabric and landscapes, and the guidelines for doing so have been exceedingly efficient. The new challenge lies in the ability of preservation professionals to advocate for the preservation of properties that are not only dynamically evolving with the patterns of social history, but may also seem foreign to them as outsiders to the community under consideration. Ormond H. Loomis explored this issue in Cultural Conservation. He addressed the impossibility of preserving the “contours, texture, and features of any specific culture,” as those elements are, by nature, dynamic. To try to stem the inevitable change in society or render it frozen in time would be pointless and wrong. The natural flow of cultural development lies in the hands of the people as a consequence of their freedom to choose. Loomis continues by saying, “it is possible, however, to temper change so that it proceeds in accordance with the will 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the people, and not in response to the pressure of faddish trends of insensitive public or private projects.”1 8 It would be erroneous to state that no progress has been made in the field of preservation in its dealings with cultural significance over the past forty years. Rather, the countless publications, conferences, and studies devoted to the subject have kept the topic on the top of the collective preservation consciousness, where they will continue to stay as we become more and more aware of our diverse cultural history as a nation. The question at hand, rather, is how do we take the knowledge we now have and turn it into something pragmatic and useful? How can we ensure that those treasures, which are so important to the cultural fabric of the nation’s diverse cities, don’t meet the same fate as Holiday Bowl? 1 8 Loomis, 29. 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 2: Holiday Bowl: The Life and Death of One of Los Angeles’s Preeminent Cultural Landmarks Figure 1. Holiday Bowl, 3730 Crenshaw Boulevard. Photograph courtesy of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, date unknown. Holiday Bowl was constructed in 1958 at 3830 South Crenshaw Boulevard, at the eastern boundary of the area known as the Crenshaw District. Primarily developed in the 1920s, Crenshaw is mostly residential in nature with commercial corridors along Jefferson and Crenshaw Boulevards. Upon its initial development it was a significantly integrated area, the first of its residents being white, Jewish, 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Japanese and Latino. After World War II, it became home to the largest concentration of Japanese Americans in the city. Prior to World War II, the Japanese community mostly lived in and around Little Tokyo, which is located near the northeast comer of downtown Los Angeles. Little Tokyo served as their social and cultural center, containing religious and educational institutions, markets, bars, restaurants and supply and trade facilities for the predominantly agriculture-based Japanese community. The homogenous nature of Little Tokyo came to an abrupt halt on February 19,1942, when Congress issued Executive Order 9066 to remove all Japanese, citizens and aliens, from the immediate west coast.1 9 The Los Angeles Japanese formed lines on First Street in Little Tokyo and awaited buses that would take them to relocation camps in Manzanar and Owens Valley. With the draining of its Japanese citizens, Little Tokyo was vacant and soon inhabited by newly-migrated African Americans. The resurgence of the former Japanese quarter proceeded quickly, with the name “Little Tokyo” replaced by “Bronzeville.” In 1945, Los Angeles’s Japanese were released from internment and came back to their beloved Little Tokyo only to find that in the three years of their absence they, for the most part, no longer had ownership of the businesses and buildings they had been forced to abandon. Violence was feared in the area as the Japanese attempted to reclaim Little Tokyo from the black population. Although 1 9 “Executive Order 9066,” Wikipedia online encyclopedia, 27 April 2006, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ExecutiveOrder 9066>. 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the anticipated riots never erupted, continued strife over crime and cleanliness kept 9A the two groups from co-existing peaceably. Once Japanese Americans regained equilibrium in Los Angeles after the atrocities of internment, they abandoned hope of a renewed Little Tokyo and joined the postwar flight to the suburbs. “The Japanese population,” explained one Nisei (meaning second-generation Japanese American) in 1970, “is scattered throughout Southern California to a large degree. Their needs are met in the same manner as those of other suburbanites. Their lives no longer revolve around Little Tokyo.”2 1 The main area of postwar Japanese settlement was the Crenshaw District. By 1950 it boasted the largest concentration of Japanese in metropolitan Los Angeles, 99 enabling the development of Nisei small businesses. One such Nisei business was a bowling alley called Holiday Bowl. There had been a bowling alley on Grand Avenue in downtown Los Angeles called “Roll Bowl” that was patronized by the Japanese American population immediately after the war; as this population decentralized out of downtown, it made sense to open a new bowling alley in Crenshaw. To help pay for building costs, the Crenshaw Park Co-Partnership sold shares to local residents forming an early bond between the bowling center and the community. 2 0 Lon Kurashige, Japanese American Celebration and Conflict: A History of Ethnic Identity and Festival in Los Angeles, 1934-1990 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002) 113. 2 1 Ibid., 130. 2 2 Ibid., 131. 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Japanese Americans took up bowling in the years leading up to World War II, when it was one of the fastest-growing sports in the nation. Participation in American Bowling Congress (ABC) leagues was banned to non-white members for the first half of the twentieth century, forcing the Japanese community to form their own leagues. The Japanese American Citizen’s League (JACL) organized Japanese leagues and tournaments, which allowed bowlers to play in a circuit of bowling alleys friendly to Japanese American communities. Participation in JACL- sponsored tournaments was open to anyone with twenty-five percent or more Japanese ancestry. Similarly, the National Bowling Association (formerly known as the Negro Bowling Association) was founded in 1939, when African American bowlers could find few places to bowl or had to bowl at odd hours. The American Bowling Congress opened its doors to non-white members in 1950; however, the memory of discrimination persisted and African American and Japanese American bowlers were more comfortable competing in their own leagues. Holiday Bowl, which opened just eight years after the ban was lifted, offered something that at the time seemed revolutionary: it was accessible to all bowlers. As with most Southern Californian post-war communities, the ethnic mosaic of the Crenshaw neighborhood was continually in flux. In the years after internment, second and third-generation Japanese Americans settled into the area between Exposition and King Boulevards immediately east and west of Crenshaw 2 3 PCR Services Corporation, Holiday Bowl, Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation (HABS No. CA-2775, September 2003). 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Boulevard. At about the same time, African Americans began their gradual expansion west, out of South Central Los Angeles and through the Jefferson Boulevard, Leimert Park and Vernon Avenue corridors.2 4 Suddenly at the center of a racially diverse area, Holiday Bowl brought Japanese American and African American bowlers into close contact with one another, creating friendships that endured from high school through retirement. In a community principally noted for its gang violence and racial tension, this was an alliance of monumental proportions. The unlikely bond between the black and Japanese communities at Holiday Bowl is one that is difficult to explain beyond speculation. The two communities have a long history of animosity in Los Angeles, perhaps starting with the dispute of territory in Little Tokyo after the Japanese returned from internment. Furthermore, Japanese Americans have historically been held up in society as a “model minority,” whose acceptance into the middle-class validated mainstream society’s claim to being ‘colorblind’ while implying that the hardship of blacks was self-inflicted.2 5 At Holiday Bowl, however, these prejudices and class-distinctions did not exist. While the two groups maintained separate leagues, they spent long hours 2 4 Gail Dubrow and Donna Graves, Sento at Sixth and Main: Preserving Landmarks of Japanese American Heritage (Seattle: Seattle Arts Commission, 2002) 187. 2 5 Scott Tadao Kurashige, Transforming Los Angeles: Black and Japanese American Struggles for Racial Equality in the 20th Century, Dissertation for degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, University of California, Los Angeles. 2000. Kurashige notes that while the social conditions of Japanese and black communities diverged in the postwar era, the division exploded with the Watts Rebellion. Page viii. 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. talking and laughing in the coffee shop or at the bar, creating friendships and life long bonds. It may have been the shared memories of exclusion from American Bowling Congress leagues that united the two groups, or a common love of bowling as a recreational activity. Regardless, Holiday Bowl was characterized by its inexplicable ability to serve as a peaceful place for members of two ethnic groups whose relationship can historically be described as anything but peaceful. Holiday Bowl survived the Watts Rebellion of 1965 without as much as a broken window. The community did not come out nearly as unscathed; shaken by the riots a large percentage of the Japanese population began to move to other parts of Los Angeles. Despite the persisting decentralization of the Japanese American community, they continued to patronize Holiday Bowl, which by this point, most referred to as “home.”2 6 Holiday Bowl remained open twenty-four hours a day for nearly thirty years - a reflection of the industrial work schedule of many of its patrons, particularly those in the aerospace industry. The closing of these plants, the aging of the patrons, and an influx of gang activity in the Crenshaw neighborhood eventually led to the introduction of a midnight closing time in the 1980s. Violence became common in the area; in 1986, long-time Holiday Bowl patron George “Juggie” Furukawa was shot in the hip during a robbery in the parking lot. It took eleven 2 6 Sharon Sekhon, coordinator, “Oral History Database,” Holiday Bowl History Project, 21 Feburary 2006 <http://www.holidaybowlcrenshaw.com/oralhistorydb/>. When listening to the numerous oral histories on the website, an overwhelming amount of patrons refer to the Holiday Bowl as “home,” or the place where they felt they were “family.” It is no coincidence that Nina Revoyr, in her novel Southland, changed the name of the “Holiday Bowl” to the “Family Bowl.” 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. operations to regain use of one of his legs, but Furukawa continued to visit Holiday Bowl. He could no longer bowl, but as he put it, “I can still come to Holiday and have a few beers.” Despite the changing climate of the neighborhood and increasing gang- related violence in the area, loyal bowlers continued to patronize Holiday Bowl. During the Los Angeles riots provoked by the Rodney King verdict in April 1992, regulars stood in front of the building to protect it from rioters. Not only did it not endure any damage, but it was open for business on the evening of April 29. It served as the venue where the shaken community could gather to check in with one another and talk about the horrific violence that was occurring in their beloved neighborhood. By the end of the 1990s, patronage at Holiday Bowl continued to decline. In what Robert Putnam refers to as a general loss of “social capital” in his book, Bowling Alone, Americans (and thus, Angelenos) by and large weren’t joining bowling leagues anymore. Although evidence suggested the people were still bowling in large quantities, league participation dropped from 80,000 members in 1965 to about 15,000 members in 2000.2 9 Holiday Bowl still had its regular bowlers, but they were growing old and new league bowlers were scarce. 2 7 Peter Hong, “Another Kind of Holiday Bowl Tradition” Los Angeles Times 2 January 1996. 2 8 Ibid. 2 9 Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000) 112. 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the late 1990s the Holiday Bowl coffee shop experienced resurgence as a popular late night spot among young Angelenos and was a local legend for its diverse menu, which included an unlikely amalgamation of Japanese (saifun, yakisoba, donburi), Chinese (chow mein, pork noodles, foo yong) and black o n Southern (hot links, grits, salmon patties, short ribs, biscuits and gravy) cuisines. The bowling facilities, however, had been allowed to decline by the current owners who had purchased the bowling alley in 1994. Many of the long-time Holiday Bowl league participants grew frustrated as it had once been one of the most technologically advanced bowling alleys in the city; it had been the first bowling o 1 center in Los Angeles to install an automatic scoring system. Before long, rumors began circulating that the owners of Holiday Bowl were considering selling the bowling alley to a developer who had plans to demolish the building to make way for a strip retail shopping center. Confirming the worst fears of the community, Holiday Bowl closed its doors for the last time on May 7, 2000. During its last weekend of operation, patrons lined up outside Holiday Bowl waiting to get in for one last game or one last meal at the coffee shop. Long-time patron Isamu Shiosaki lamented to reporter John Saito, Jr. that he wasn’t sure where he was going to go for his meals once Holiday Bowl closed; he had been eating three meals a day in the coffee shop since his parents died in 1988. In two 3 0 Erin A. Aubry, “Dining: Holiday Bowl,” LA Weekly 14 July 1999. 3 1 John Saito, Jr. “End of Era: Holiday Bowl, 1958-2000,” Rafu Shimpo [Los Angeles] 12 May 2000: 1. 3 2 Ibid, 3. 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. days, over eight hundred signatures were collected in an attempt to get the owner to reconsider closing the bowling alley. Despite the pleas of the community, the owners of Holiday Bowl went forward with its closure. News of the closure and imminent demolition of the bowling alley spread quickly. The Los Angeles Japanese newspaper, Rafu Shimpo, dedicated the entire front page of its May 12 issue to Holiday Bowl. Large letters across the top read, “End of Era: Holiday Bowl, 1958-2000.”3 3 The article looked and read like an obituary, profiling the life and death of a beloved community member. Word of the potential demolition also found its way to modem architecture enthusiasts, who were soon up in arms over the prospect of the destruction of yet another of the area’s “Googie” treasures. Holiday Bowl was constructed by Ted R. Cooper and the well-known Los Angeles architectural firm Armet and Davis, and the Chinese-American designer (and local resident) Helen Fong was responsible for the design of the interior spaces.3 4 Armet and Davis are widely credited for establishing the Googie style as a recognized and popular architectural style. Their work for several restaurant chains, including Bob’s Big Boy and Denny’s, colonized the style throughout the nation. The coffee shop portion of the building exhibited several characteristics of the style, which include large exaggerated and angled roofs that appear to float over large expanses of plate glass walls, abstracted geometric planes, and the integration 3 3 Ibid, 1. 3 4 Dubrow and Graves, 193. 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of natural and synthetic materials such as stone, terrazzo, Formica, stainless steel, plastic and fiberglass.3 5 The Los Angeles Conservancy subsidiary group, the “Modem Committee” (ModCom), became particularly active in advocating Holiday Bowl’s significance as a distinctive example of the Googie style. It posted “URGENT action” alerts on its website3 6 and began to rally the support of the large community of modem architecture enthusiasts throughout the country, nearly all of whom had never actually been to Holiday Bowl. While the loss of a Googie bowling alley may or may not have been lamented by the community, it can be asserted that it was not the physical qualities of the building that made it significant to those who used its spaces during the near 45 years of its existence. The families and individuals who patronized Holiday Bowl were attached to it for intangible reasons. Cultural Conservation describes those intangible elements as “values, and actions expressing them, that stand in favor of connections to one’s immediate community and place. As such they are found in the interaction among family, neighbors, and friends and provide the touchstones for orienting the individual in society.”3 7 Holiday Bowl was an extension of the cultural identity of a community that defied geographic and ethnic boundaries. In many ways, the Holiday Bowl community had nothing in common 3 5 PCR Services Corporation, Holiday Bowl, Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation (HABS No. CA-2775, September 2003) 7. 3 6 The Modem Committee’s “URGENT action” webpage is located at the following website address: http://www.modcom.org/actionl .php3. 3 7 Loomis, 27. 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with one another other than their connections to the bowling alley itself. Without Holiday Bowl many have lost touch with one another, and many lament the lack of cultural and recreational facilities in the Crenshaw area.3 8 In his study of black and Japanese American relations in Los Angeles, Scott Kurashige relates that Los Angeles is “commonly portrayed as a city which resists or defies comprehension (or is defined by its incomprehensibility).” The Los Angeles urban area (not limited to the city limits, but including the entire urban sphere) covers 1,668 square miles and is inhabited by nearly fifteen million people from more than 140 countries, and who speak at least 224 different languages. It has the second largest percentage of foreign-born citizens of any major U.S. city, after Miami.4 0 Despite its diversity, the 1992 riots have lent currency to the notion that multi-ethnic diversity is leading towards dystopia. Various themes peppered the news around the events of the riots: white jurors denying African American demands for justice, Korean merchants mistreating black and Latino customers, black rioters injuring innocent non-black victims, Latino immigrants looting Asian- owned businesses, and so on.4 1 Los Angeles residents began to wonder whether it was possible for so many different cultures to live in one city. 3 8 Sekhon. This was a common sentiment among those interviewed for the oral history component of the Holiday Bowl History Project. 3 9 Kurashige, 3. 4 0 “Los Angeles census data, 2000,” Wikipedia online encyclopedia, 27 April 2006, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Los_Angeles#Census_2000>. 4 1 Kurashige, 4. 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Those residents need only to have visited Holiday Bowl to regain optimism about the potential of a peacefully integrated city. When news spread of the closure and imminent demolition of the bowling alley, dozens of articles began to appear in newspapers, locally and nationwide. Nearly every article recounted the peaceable existence of people of different ethnicities within the confines of the Holiday Bowl walls. The New York Times called the bowling alley “a cherished Landmark of Diversity”4 2 and an article in the Los Angeles Times called it a “symbol of L.A. diversity” where “people have fallen in love with Los Angeles and each other for 42 years.”4 3 The facilitation of friendships, the recreational ritual of bowling, communion with people of different cultures and ethnicities, and the creation and maintenance of family traditions; these were the intangible qualities that made Holiday Bowl one of Los Angeles’s proudest landmarks. As a representative of the Googie style, its significance was valued within the circles of modem architecture appreciation. But as a cultural landmark, its indisputable significance brought a city - and much of the rest of the country - to attention. 4 2 Don Terry, “Last Rites for a Cherished ‘Landmark of Diversity,’” The New York Times 8 May 2000: A14. 4 3 Peter Hong, “Fans Again Hope to Save a Symbol of L.A. Diversity,” Los Angeles Times 3 May 2000: B l. 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 3: Analysis of the Preservation Battle for Holiday Bowl Figure 2. View of the Holiday Bowl coffee shop and sign after closure and demolition of the bowling alley. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak, March 2005 The next chapter in the story of Holiday Bowl unfolds into one of the most tumultuous preservation battles in Los Angeles history. An unfortunate reality of historic preservation advocacy is the fact that, in the end, no matter how persuasive the argument, the decisions of preservation versus demolition are left to politicians who may not hold historic preservation as their highest priority. Holiday Bowl was a victim of such a reality; the influence of commercial real estate development had a loftier political punch than that of a modest building backed by a veritable army of concerned community members. 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When Holiday Bowl closed its doors on May 7,2000, the community, along with the Los Angeles Conservancy and the Modern Committee, immediately began to devise a strategy that would save the building from the wrecking ball. These groups banded together to form the Coalition to Save Holiday Bowl, which - according to then Director of Preservation Issues at the Los Angeles Conservancy, Ken Bernstein - was, and remains, the most diverse and unlikely of preservation coalitions the city had ever seen.4 4 Jacqueline Sowell, who had been a waitress at Holiday Bowl since October 1995 and a life-long patron, completed and submitted the Historic-Cultural Monument application to the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission. The Commission held a special meeting on June 9, 2000, to discuss the status of Holiday Bowl. Ms. Sowell submitted her nomination application at this meeting and testified to the Commission, stating that the bowing alley was the “Crenshaw community’s country club,” one that had “always served the community.”4 5 John English, representing the Modem Committee, presented slides of the building and argued for its significance as a central landmark representative of Los Angeles’s postwar architectural history. Scott Kurashige stood to offer a context for the building as an irreplaceable landmark representing the Japanese community, who relied heavily on bowling as a recreational activity and 4 4 Ken Bernstein, Director of Advocacy Issues, Los Angeles Conservancy, personal interview. 20 December 2005. 4 5 Scott Kurashige, “Holiday Bowl vs. the Wrecking Ball,” Rafu Shimpo [Los Angeles] 22 June 2000. 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. community building tool after internment. Finally, Linda Dishman of the Los Angeles Conservancy stood and pledged the full support of the Conservancy in finding a resolution that would both preserve the building and benefit the community.4 6 Upon hearing the testimonies made by the members of the Coalition, the Cultural Heritage Commission voted in favor of putting the nomination officially “under consideration,” which would stall the issuance of a demolition permit until a decision on the nomination had been rendered. The Cultural Heritage Commission nomination hearing took place on July 6. The outcome of the meeting was an early victory for the Coalition to Save Holiday Bowl; the Commission had voted to include the bowling alley on the list of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments, which would protect the building from demolition. However, this decision needed to go before the Arts, Health and Humanities Committee (a subcommittee of City Council) and ultimately City Council for approval and ratification. The Arts, Health, and Humanities Committee meeting was held on September 11 and was a continuum in the overall feeling of optimism for the Coalition. The committee chair recommended that City Council ratify the Cultural Heritage Commission’s decision and a date was set for the building to come up in front of the Council and the Planning and Land Use Management Committee. 4 6 City of Los Angeles, Cultural Heritage Commission, Minutes, special meeting. 9 June 2000. 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Due to the summer recess, City Council could not meet to consider the request of the Cultural Heritage Commission until October. In the meantime, the Coalition rallied support and encouraged individuals to write letters to the Commission and to City Council members voicing concern for the building. The Japanese American National Museum wrote in support of the building, as did the Japanese American Citizen’s League. Alan Hess, author of Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture,4 7 wrote a letter stating that Holiday Bowl was as good an example of the Googie style as most that were included in his book. The National Bowling Association Senate wrote a letter that referred to Holiday Bowl as a “home away from home for many in the community.”4 8 In a personal statement that was issued to members of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee and City Council before the October monument designation meeting, Jay Oren of the Cultural Heritage Commission made a personal recommendation for monument status. Whereas the Commission had previously emphasized Holiday Bowl’s meeting the criteria for architectural significance as a Googie bowling alley, this latest statement was of a different nature entirely. It read: “Holiday Bowl meets the criteria of the Cultural Heritage ordinance because it helps impart an understanding of the ideas and forces that shaped the community... It also lends tangibility to an otherwise abstract past and it 4 7 Alan Hess, Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1985). 4 8 Japanese American National Museum, personal letter to Cultural Heritage Commission, 20 June 2000; Japanese American Citizen’s League, personal letter to Cultural Heritage Commission, 23 June 2000; Alan Hess, personal letter to the Cultural Heritage Commission, 24 June 2000; National Bowling Association Senate, personal letter to Cultural Heritage Commission, 30 June 2000. 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is invaluable in weaving a sense of the shared history and experience among our citizens.” He went on to state that Holiday Bowl was the “strongest application [for monument status] I’ve seen in thirteen years in two jobs. It clearly meets the Cultural Heritage criterion.”4 9 At the October 24 meeting, Mr. Oren stood in front of City Council and the Planning and Land Use Committee to state that Holiday Bowl was a “good example of Googie architecture and has cultural and social significance in the African and Japanese American communities.”5 0 A representative of the Tenth Council District Office, which represents the Crenshaw area, stood to report that Councilmember Nate Holden was opposed to the designation of the property as a Historic-Cultural Monument. Mr. Holden’s representative went on to state that the developer of a proposed project had offered to reproduce portions of the Holiday Bowl fa?ade into the design of a new restaurant to be constructed on the site.5 1 Members of the Coalition who were present at the meeting were floored by the statement from Councilmember Holden’s office. Ken Bernstein of the Los Angeles Conservancy stood to refute it, reiterating that Holiday Bowl was unique as both an example of Googie architecture and as a multi-cultural landmark, and that a reproduction of part of its facade would not adequately preserve either its 4 9 Jay Oren, personal statement addressed to Planning and Land Use Management Committee and City Council. 12 September 2000. 5 0 City of Los Angeles, Planning and Land Use Committee, Planning and Land Use Management Report, 28 November 2000. File no. 00-1382. 5 1 Ibid. In my research I was unable to locate minutes from the October 24th , 2000 City Council meeting; therefore, I cannot state whether Councilmember Holden was actually present at this meeting, nor was I able to determine who was speaking on his behalf. 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tangible or intangible qualities.5 2 The Planning and Land Use Committee, noting that the Council was at an impasse, deferred the final decision to another meeting at which other alternatives could be discussed. The next meeting was scheduled for November 14, 2000. Members of the Coalition to Save Holiday Bowl worked diligently to rally more support for the building. They encouraged supporters of Holiday Bowl to write letters to Councilmember Holden that bespoke of its importance to the Crenshaw community; hundreds of letters were written and sent to Mr. Holden’s office. The Los Angeles Conservancy contacted Brunswick Indoor Recreation Group to solicit interest in rehabilitating Holiday Bowl as a bowling alley; Brunswick was enthusiastic about the opportunity. The indefatigable efforts of the Coalition were unfortunately unable to stand up to the political clout of Councilmember Nate Holden. The November meeting opened with immediate controversy over opinions regarding an appropriate fate for the bowling alley. Mr. Holden’s representative stated that Brunswick was not interested in the opportunity of a bowling alley at Holiday Bowl; the Coalition had documentation which proved that statement erroneous.5 4 The project developer submitted plans to incorporate the Holiday Bowl facade into a new Denny’s 5 2 Ibid. 5 3 Warren N. Hardie, Brunswick Indoor Recreation Group, personal letter to Mark Zuckerman, 7 September 2000. In Mr. Hardie’s letter to Mr. Zuckerman, he discussed the resurging vitality of bowling as a recreational activity and the feasibility of an updated Holiday Bowl. He offered support and “assistance in developing a pragmatic business plan, capital equipment, design and construction services and if necessary, the development of a management team.” 5 4 Ibid. 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Restaurant on the site; the Coalition persisted that this plan, if executed, would not fully preserve the cultural and social significance of the site.5 5 The City Council, Planning Land Use Committee and the Coalition to Save Holiday Bowl had reached a state of gridlock. On one hand, members of the Council clearly understood and were sympathetic to the significance of Holiday Bowl as a cultural landmark to the Crenshaw community. The Coalition had won over the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Arts, Health and Humanities Committee and had their recommendation for monument status. On the other hand, the dissension coming from Councilmember Holden’s office was difficult to ignore. It is not uncommon for City Council to defer controversial issues to the councilmember in whose district the issues are located, allowing them final consent. To disagree with Councilmember Holden on an issue located under his jurisdiction might have seemed unconscionable. Therefore, hoping to avoid the wrath of a fellow councilmember, City Council buckled and declined ratification of landmark designation for the entire building. Rather, a suggestion was made that the building be “partially preserved.” The Planning and Land Use Management Committee members stated that “the proposal to preserve the cafe facade is a fair compromise and is in keeping with the intent of the City’s Historic-Cultural Landmark ordinance in that it accomplishes significant architectural preservation.” The Committee recommended 5 5 City of Los Angeles, Planning and Land Use Committee. 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that City Council include “only the fa9ade and architectural treatment of the restaurant/cafe portion of Holiday Bowl in the list of the City’s Historic-Cultural monuments.”5 6 This would render the bowling alley itself vulnerable to demolition. The designation of the Holiday Bowl coffee shop and sign - but not the bowling alley itself - was unanimously accepted by the Cultural Heritage Commission and City Council, and was officially adopted on December 19, 2000. It was declared Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument No. 688. To members of the Coalition, this resolution was not a “fair compromise.” Rather, it would enable a developer to destroy the closest thing Crenshaw had to a community center for the construction of yet another strip mall. To them, Councilmember Holden did not appear to have the community’s best interest in mind; rather, it seemed he was more invested in the interests of the commercial real estate developer. To this day, advocates of Holiday Bowl blame Mr. Holden and his political agenda for the ultimate destruction of the bowling alley. It is impossible to look over the sequence of events leading to City Council’s ultimate decision without asking the difficult questions: if Holiday Bowl had been located in a more affluent and less ethnically diverse part of the city, would it have had a better chance of obtaining monument status? What if it hadn’t been a bowling 5 6 Ibid. 5 7 In conversations with members of the Coalition, it is nearly always mentioned that the developer of the Coliseum Center, Abe Shofet, had been a major contributor to Councilmember Holden’s campaign. This would explain Nate Holden’s interest and obligation to the development of the Coliseum Center and the hindrance a landmarked Holiday Bowl would have posed on such a development. 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. alley, which is sometimes associated with the working-class? Was this an issue of racism and classism as much as it was an issue of political gain and the greed of real estate development? These issues left a bitter taste with the Coalition, and after eight consecutive months of battle they were not yet ready to give in to defeat. Knowing that the proposed project would likely require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Los Angeles Conservancy anticipated another opportunity to fight demolition. Under California environmental law, CEQA is triggered by any discretionary action authorized by the local government that has the potential to have a significant negative impact on the environment. Historical resources, under CEQA, are considered a component of the environment. If, after an initial study, the discretionary action (or, in the case of Holiday Bowl, a demolition permit) is determined to have a significant negative impact on the environment, an EIR will be required. The EIR suggests what mitigations might be appropriate and the Community Redevelopment Agency determines whether or not to certify the EIR and, ultimately, how the negative impact might be mitigated. The EIR was seen by the Coalition as the last opportunity to save the bowling center. The proposed project, called the “Coliseum Center,” included the demolition of the bowling alley portion of the building and the construction of a Walgreens drug store in its place. A Starbucks coffee retailer would move into the 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Holiday Bowl coffee shop, and only 1,421 square feet of the original 36,000 would remain. If the City Redevelopment Agency (CRA) could not agree on mitigation for the adverse effects of the project on Holiday Bowl, demolition may potentially be stalled and there might be an opportunity to save the bowling alley in its entirety. Unfortunately, things did not unfold as the Coalition had hoped. The EIR, which was prepared by consultant PCR Services Corporation in 2002, showed a distinct bias toward the architectural significance of the bowling alley. While it appropriately recognized Holiday Bowl as a historical resource, it did not elaborate on its rich cultural history or its significance to the Crenshaw community. In focusing on the material significance of the fa?ade of the coffee shop, it failed to provide alternatives that would leave the bowling alley intact. Additionally, it erroneously asserted that a bowling alley would be economically infeasible in the Crenshaw neighborhood due to a decline in the popularity of bowling as a recreational activity when in fact the opposite was true.5 9 Despite a drop in league participation, the popularity of bowling was at an all-time high at the time of the closure of Holiday Bowl, with more than 45 million Americans participating in the sport. A study conducted in the year 2000 found South Los Angeles to be 5 8 PCR Services Corporation, Environmental Impact Report, ‘ Coliseum Center, ’ October 2002, 123. 5 9 Ibid, 60. 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. significantly “under-laned” with bowling facilities when compared to other Los Angeles neighborhoods.6 0 A component of the EIR process is a public comment period, during which the EIR is made available to the public, and individuals are encouraged to comment on its content and conclusions. Ken Bernstein of the Los Angeles Conservancy wrote a long letter to the CRA critiquing the EIR for its assessment of the bowling alley’s cultural significance. Mr. Bernstein commented that the EIR should “be much clearer about the rich cultural resource that would be lost to our community... [The project] is characterized as a missed opportunity for deeper, more enduring economic development, utilizing a cultural asset as an economic asset.”6 1 In addition to the comments of Ken Bernstein and the Los Angeles Conservancy, the CRA received hundreds of letters from citizens pleading that the Agency spare Holiday Bowl from demolition. Letters came from all over the country from people of all races and generations. One handwritten letter read, “I have lived in the community for thirty years and I am a foster parent. My foster children loved having a place to go bowling and play arcade games. I always felt good about having a place like that so close to our home. We need more facilities for children NOT retail.”6 2 Another community member wrote, “I was really upset when I heard the Holiday Bowl was bought and was going to be closed down and 6 0 Ken Bernstein, personal letter to Robert Manford, City Planner with the City Redevelopment Agency, 7 October 2002. 6 1 Ibid. 6 2 Mildred Elzy, personal letter to the City Redevelopment Agency, 1 October 2002. 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [made] into yet another shopping center. Part of my youth was being tom from me once again.”6 3 Nearly all of the letters spoke of childhood memories of the bowling alley, of the multi-generational appeal of its spaces, and of the tremendous despair at the fact that the building would be replaced with franchise retail stores. Many spoke of personal loss, of feeling as though they were being estranged from an integral component of their cultural identity. Despite community protest and harsh critique from the Los Angeles Conservancy, the CRA certified on November 7, 2002, that the final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. Mitigation for the loss of the bowling alley would include HABS-level recordation of the building, ensured compatibility of the new construction, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards-compliant rehabilitation of the Holiday Bowl coffee shop, and an interpretation program and/or public art display.6 4 Meanwhile, in yet another plot twist, City Council had placed a demolition delay on the building while the project underwent the EIR process. The delay outlasted Holiday Bowl’s biggest nemesis: Nate Holden. Mr. Holden left the Tenth Council District Office and was replaced by new councilmember Martin Ludlow on May 20, 2003. Mr. Ludlow had voiced concern for Holiday Bowl during his campaign and agreed after two months in office to meet with the Crenshaw Community Recreation Center and with Coalition members to find an alternative to 6 3 Elaien Eguchi, personal letter to the City Redevelopment Agency, 4 October 2002. 6 4 PCR Services Corporation, Environmental Impact Report, ‘ Coliseum Center, ’ October 2002. Exhibit One: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 1. 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. demolition of the bowling alley. The Cultural Heritage Commission was given 180 days to reach a solution; by the time all parties had a chance to meet, the 180-day period was coming to a close. The Commission called an emergency meeting at which they requested an additional 180-day demolition delay. However, when the request reached the City Attorney, he claimed that the emergency meeting had been held a few days after the deadline and the new demolition delay was denied. Councilmember Ludlow backed down, and the demolition permit was granted.6 5 Holiday Bowl was demolished in October of 2003. The coffee shop portion of the building, in limbo between life and afterlife, quickly became covered with graffiti and surrounded by abandoned cars. It was painful for those who still lived in the neighborhood and remembered the Holiday Bowl in its prime to see it in this condition, as it was just recognizable enough to remind them of what was missing. Arthur Sutton, a Crenshaw resident and long-term patron of the Holiday Bowl had these thoughts on the demolition of the bowling alley: “It was almost like losing your family home. You have a place to live, but a house is not [always] a home. Holiday Bowl was our family home... I don’t even like to go past there now, ‘cause it stirs too many memories, and I know that’s a part of my life that’ll never be repeated. Even though I’d like it to be repeated, that’s just not the way it is.”6 6 6 5 Ken Bernstein, Director of Preservation Issues, Los Angeles Conservancy, personal interview, 20 December 2005. 6 6 Edward Mejia, “Personal Interview with Arthur Sutton,” Holiday Bowl History Project, Sharon Sekhon, coordinator, 2004,21 Feburary 2006, <http://www.holidaybowlcrenshaw.com/oralhistorydb/ index.php?a=view&id= 10>. 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The HABS recordation of the entire building was completed by PCR Services Corporation in September of 2003. A plan for public art was finalized in May, 2005. The public art component of the EIR unfolded into a three-part project. One element of the project is a piece titled “Japanese Garden,” by artist Masayuki Oda. “Japanese Garden” consists of a long strip of travertine resembling a bowling lane that culminates into a small Japanese garden. It is located at the outdoor patio of the Starbucks coffee shop, just south of the building. Another element of the project is a tile mural depicting faces of somewhat undeterminable race by African American artist Richard Wyatt, located at the southern entrance of Starbucks. These two pieces were meant to contextually represent the Japanese and African American social interaction that was historically associated with Holiday Bowl. The last component of the public art project is a permanent exhibition of historic photographs of Holiday Bowl by photographer Jack Laxer, to be located in the Starbucks coffee shop. The photographs will “provide an understanding of the architectural relationship that existed between the coffee shop and the bowling alley.” They will also provide documentation of the significant materials that were located in the original coffee shop and subsequently removed in the conversion of the space into a Starbucks. What is left of Holiday Bowl? The fa9ade, with hunter green “STARBUCKS COFFEE” signage hanging from the cantilevered roof (the neon 6 7 City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Staff Report, 4 May 2005. 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “always open” sign long removed), a few historic photographs, an indecipherable tile mural, and a travertine slab resembling a bowling lane. Behind Starbucks, a Walgreen’s pharmacy looms in the form of a two-story box. The orange and white neon “Bowl” sign now shares its steel pedestal with Starbucks and Washington Mutual signs. Its presence will seem curious to future generations of passersby: what does it represent? And to those who remember, its presence is a painful reminder of the loss of a beloved community resource and of an excruciating three year preservation battle that resulted in defeat - a battle in which few had much to gain and hundreds lost what was most important. 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 4: Recommendations for the Identification, Preservation and Commemoration of Culturally Significant Resources____ Although the loss of Holiday Bowl can largely be attributed to political motivations that were outside of the control of advocates, it is difficult to look back on a failed preservation battle without speculating whether things might have concluded differently under different circumstances. What if the argument for preservation had been constructed in another way? What if there had been more of a precedent for the preservation of culturally significant resources in the Los Angeles political mechanism? Would there have been a way to save Holiday Bowl? Those in advocacy have a tendency to move on from failed preservation battles without looking back; there are ample preservation issues with which to keep busy in a city like Los Angeles without dwelling on those that did not turn out as one had hoped they would. However, perhaps it is the retroactive analysis of the battles that end in defeat that will encourage a better understanding of advocacy in the future. Whether it be change within federal, state and local preservation policies or through private programs and initiatives, it is clear that there needs to be a better understanding of the importance of culturally significant properties and of more effective ways of articulating the magnitude of their significance to American community. 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Recommendations for Change at the Federal Level As discussed in Chapter One, there is a lack of guidance in federal preservation policy for the identification and evaluation of culturally significant properties. It is this deficiency in the infrastructure that ultimately affects state and local advocacy efforts; if there sire few guidelines or precedents to rely upon, it is difficult to know how to construct a convincing argument for cultural significance that will carry weight in a political platform. The amendments made to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1980 turned the focus of preservation professionals toward the need for such guidelines, and the 1983 document Cultural Conservation was meant to be the vehicle that would mobilize efforts. In 1990, partially in response to the recommendations made in Cultural Conservation, the National Park Service created National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.68 As touched upon briefly earlier in this document, the Bulletin was intended to be an aid in determining whether properties thought to have “traditional cultural significance” are eligible for the National Register. According to Bulletin 38, “traditional cultural properties” are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places if they are significant for their “association with cultural practices and beliefs that are (1) rooted in the history of a community, and (2) are important to maintaining continuity of that community’s traditional beliefs and 6 8 Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Register Bulletin 38 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1990. Revised 1992, 1998). 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. practices.”6 9 The Bulletin outlines how these types of properties may be eligible under each of the four National Register criteria. Unfortunately, properties such as Holiday Bowl are not included under the umbrella of this document. The classification of “traditional cultural property” is not available for all properties under consideration for designation as significant in American history and culture. Rather, it is intended only for properties associated with “traditional communities.” In her essay in Preservation: O f What? For Whom?, Barbara G. Anderson explains that in public policy, traditional communities are defined by political, cultural and ethnic boundaries. Under this public policy the popular American culture will likely not qualify as a “traditional community.”7 0 For example, Bulletin 38 would be helpful in the evaluation of neighborhoods or properties that are the traditional home of a particular cultural 71 group and that reflect its beliefs and practices, such as Little Tokyo. Properties found in Little Tokyo were built and used principally by and for the Japanese community for traditional cultural purposes. Holiday Bowl, however, was utilized by a variety of ethnic groups without being defined by its association with any certain one. Although its connection to the Japanese community was indisputably a large component of its significance, the bowling alley was not what would be 6 9 Ibid. 7 0 Barbara G. Anderson, “The Importance of Cultural Meaning in Defining and Preserving Sense of Place,” Preservation: O f What? For Whom? ed. Michael Tomlan (Ithaca: National Council for Preservation Education, 1998) 134. 7 1 Bulletin 38 uses Honolulu’s Chinatown as an example of a “traditional cultural property.” 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. considered a “traditional Japanese property.” Thus it falls through the cracks of Bulletin 38, proving that its scope is too narrow. The cultural identity of a community may defy traditional ethnic or social boundaries; it does not have to mean “Japanese American” or “African American.” Los Angeles communities (as with most urban communities) are a mosaic of interwoven cultures and ethnicities. In that sense they are anything but traditional. Despite this, the National Park Service was on the right track with Bulletin 38. It proved that cultural significance is actively recognized in federal preservation policy, even if in too narrow a scope. Consequently it presents a new opportunity for preservationists to span the gap between traditional cultural properties and all other cultural properties, emphasizing the importance of cultural meaning in place regardless of its association with any one definable group. Rather, as with Holiday Bowl, the cultural meaning permeating certain historic properties may defy ethnic and social boundaries. While this pluralism makes cultural properties more difficult to define as “traditional,” it is also what makes them significant in an integrated society. The challenge for preservation professionals in developing guidelines for cultural properties is the ability to assign measurable value to the intangibles that make them significant. Preservationist and historian Ned Kaufman stated that “while preservationists debate problems of authenticity, integrity, architectural quality, stylistic purity and significance, citizens seem to worry more about the loss 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of character, pleasure, or usefulness in the places they inhabit and love, of the ability to recall the past in them, of being forced to leave them. Many worry about the loss of cultural identity associated with them.”7 2 Words like character, pleasure, usefulness and identity by nature do not have physical attributes with which advocates can measure integrity and significance. New federal guidelines dealing specifically with these types of resources found in the diverse American landscape are vastly needed. Examples might be guidelines for “evaluating and documenting properties important to a community’s cultural identity” or for “measuring intangible cultural significance.” This could feasibly be an amendment to Bulletin 38; simply dropping the “traditional” from “traditional cultural properties” would be a good start in broadening the scope of the document. Recommendations for Change at the State Level State historic preservation programs are generally very similar to those at the federal level; the criteria for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) are nearly identical to those of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Resources that are eligible for the CRHR are automatically afforded protection under CEQA, as are resources that are eligible for local landmark status. Therefore, rather than recommending state-wide guidelines that 7 2 Ned Kaufman, “Moving Forward: Futures for a Preservation Movement,” Giving Preservation a History, eds. Max Page and Randall Mason (New York: Routledge, 2004) 314. 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. better recognize cultural significance, it might make more sense to focus on local initiatives that center around each individual city’s site-specific popular clime. One possibility for change at the state level, however, lies within the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) ability to encourage local-level projects through its allocation of grant funding. The OHP is accountable for dispensing Certified Local Government (CLG) grants for historic preservation projects. Cities who maintain CLG status may apply for grants to fund projects such as preservation plans, historic preservation ordinance revisions, architectural n'X surveys and resurveys, district nominations and historic structure reports. Through the vehicle of this program, the OHP might consider encouraging cities to apply for moneys to complete a survey of culturally significant properties. It is not uncommon for local governments to conduct thematic surveys (for example, surveys of postwar properties); a survey of culturally significant properties would be an invaluable planning and development tool for local governments as they assess what properties are valued by their communities. Recommendations for Change at the Local Level Federal guidelines are useful for regulated assistance in the identification of historic properties. The nature of culturally significant properties, however, is perhaps more conducive to the development of local initiatives that cater specifically to the popular demographic of each individual city. Local landmark 7 3 “2006 CLG Grants Manual,” California Office o f Historic Preservation, 2006,2 June 2006, <http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/ clggrantman06.doc>. 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. designation criteria, because they vary from city to city, typically make more allowances for culturally significant resources. Los Angeles’s historic preservation ordinance, for instance, states that a Historical or Cultural Monument: .. .is any site, building, or structure of particular historical or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles, such as historic structures or sites in which broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state or community is reflected or exemplified or which are identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history, or which embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type specimen, inherently valuable for a study or a period, style or method of construction, or a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age.7 4 Resources such as Holiday Bowl are clearly eligible for monument status under this ordinance as exemplifying the broad cultural or social history of the community. Despite the fact that the ordinance was written to include resources with cultural significance, the habit of preservation professionals still seems to be the tendency to focus on architectural significance. This rings true nearly across the board when looking at recent preservation battles in Los Angeles. Holiday Bowl was pushed by advocates as a Googie-modem treasure. The National Register nomination for the Breed Street Shul, which is one of the last remaining synagogues in the once-predominantly Jewish area of Los Angeles known as Boyle Heights, states that the building was eligible under Criterion A for its role in Jewish settlement patterns and under Criterion C as a “rare, modest example of Byzantine 7 4 City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance, adopted by Los Angeles City Council in 1962 and amended in 1985. (Section 22.130 et seq. of the Administrative Code). 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Revival architectural design.”7 5 Likewise, the Santa Anita racetrack (whose National Register nomination is currently pending before the State Historical Resources Commission) is being advocated as a notable work by architect Gordon Kaufmann as well as the site of the largest Assembly Center for Japanese American internment during World War II.7 6 Perhaps the most infamous of Los Angeles preservation battles of the past five years is the now-demolished Ambassador Hotel, which encapsulated a montage of cultural significance ranging from its status as a historic social center for the Hollywood elite to the tragic site of Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 assassination. While these elements were present in the argument for preservation, at the forefront was the fact that the Ambassador Hotel was designed by Myron Hunt, with later additions by Paul Revere Williams. Although certainly properties can be (and often are) significant for a multiplicity of reasons, it is evident that preservation advocates wage wars for significance based on dependable tactics; that is, they argue for architectural 77 significance because it is easier to define and assign quantifiable value. Advocates may persist that articulating multiple levels of significance can strengthen an argument for preservation. However, one could argue that the dichotomous nature 7 5 Robert J. Chattel, AIA, Francesca G. Smith, Nicole J. Purvis, Christy Lombardo and Steven J. Sass. Breed Street Shul, National Register of Historic Places Nomination, 8 May 2001. Section 8, page 1. 7 6 “Preservation Alerts and Issues,” Los Angeles Conservancy, 27 June 2006, <http://www.laconservancy.org/issues/issues_main.php4>. 7 7 While speaking with preservation advocates in both New York City (the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation) and Los Angeles (the Los Angeles Conservancy), all agreed that it is easier to form an argument for architectural significance; therefore, even with resources that may not be architecturally notable there is pressure to find aesthetic significance with which to “strengthen” the argument. 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the battle that results may distort the outcome, as the desired treatment of architecturally significant properties may be different than that of those which are culturally significant. Holiday Bowl is an excellent example of a monument whose ultimate preservation treatment was not appropriate to its local significance. If Holiday Bowl had been noteworthy only for the characteristics that made it a distinctive example of the Googie style, the preservation of the fa9ade treatment and its sensitive adaptive re-use as a Starbucks coffee shop might have been adequate treatment. However, a building that is culturally significant is important for what occurs within its walls; for its “use” and sense of place. With the removal of the bowling alley the place was destroyed, and for that there is no mitigation. This presents another difficult challenge for preservation professionals. There are no laws within state or federal policies that regulate the use of buildings. Even if a building is preserved, the business that occupies it is afforded no protection. In the case of Holiday Bowl, it was the recreational activity of bowling that largely united the community and made the place important. The building itself was only the receptacle. This is a challenge that unfortunately seems insurmountable. The goal of preservation is not to freeze progress or to try to stall the dynamic nature of a constantly evolving community. However, it might be beneficial to try to think creatively with policy makers about the possibility of 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. offering protection to the places that are important to the identity of a local community. A California-based non-profit organization called The Partnership for Working Families addresses this issue from the perspective of the communities that are witnessing the transformation of their neighborhoods as small family-owned businesses are eliminated and replaced with big box retail stores. Among other initiatives, the Partnership is working towards a “systematic and timely process for 7 8 accommodating community input into development decisions.” To streamline this process, the Partnership has developed what they call a Community Impact Report (CIR). The CIR would allow developers, policy-makers and community members to consider the social and economic impacts of major developments in the city. The CIR would be required of all large commercial and market-rate housing projects in redevelopment areas, and would be triggered when the developer completes the environmental checklist to determine whether an EIR is necessary. According to the Partnership, the brief (no more than thirty page) CIR report would include fiscal, employment, affordable housing, neighborhood needs and smart growth assessments.7 9 7 8 See the “Partnership for Working Families” website, at <http://www.califomiapartnership.org/>. 7 9 The Growth with Justice Coalition, “The Case for the Community Impact Report,” Partnership for Working Families, 18 June 2006, <http://www.califomiapartnership.org/downloads/CaseForCIR.pdf, 2>. 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. On their website, the Partnership cites Holiday Bowl and the Coliseum • • o n Center specifically as a development where a CIR might have made a difference. While it is unlikely that cities and developers would support a mandate that requires even more paperwork in the already laborious environmental process, it is a good addition to the dialogue that explores how culturally significant places might be more effectively preserved in the constantly evolving city. Recommendations for Change in Advocacy In addition to recommendations for change in federal, state and local preservation policies, there is also room for improvement within the realm of advocacy itself. Preservation advocacy for cultural landmarks is problematic because there is a disconnect between the way that preservation professionals and community members view places. Setha Low argues that “although design and planning education trains professionals to be spokespersons for local communities, it also espouses a set of professional culture beliefs and practices that limit 01 communication and understanding.” The separation between preservation professionals and community members was facilitated by the 1983 adoption of “The Secretary of the Interior’s O Q Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards.” These standards, 8 0 Ibid, 8. 8 1 Setha M. Low, “Cultural Conservation of Place.” Conserving Culture, A New Discourse on Heritage, ed. Mary Hufford (Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 1994) 70. 8 2 To qualify as a “preservation professional,” as outlined by “The Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards” (Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61), one must either have a masters degree in historic preservation, architectural history or a 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. while conceding that the protection and preservation of historic and cultural properties depends much on citizen participation, unapologetically promote the fact that “certain decisions must be made by individuals who meet nationally accepted O -J professional standards.” These standards ensure that only “qualified” preservation professionals will be able to make decisions about America’s important historical and cultural properties. This is what Frits Pannekoek refers to as the “heritage priesthood.” Pannekoek criticizes these standards as being the formal step in the ultimate alienation of the people from their heritage; preservation OA professionals “no longer counsel— they decide.” Preservation advocates have the opportunity to span the gap between the role of professionals and that of community members in their formation of diverse preservation coalitions. Community mobilization can be facilitated by preservation advocacy groups, who are generally more literate in local political lingo than the typical community member. But while the City Council and the Cultural Heritage Commission are accustomed to hearing from the same few advocacy groups in regards to the diverse range of preservation issues across the city, a community uprising might better get their attention. Therefore, rather than acting as interpreters closely related field; OR a bachelor’s degree in one of the abovementioned fields plus at least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution. 8 3 Frits Pannekok, “The Rise of a Heritage Priesthood,” Preservation: Of What? For Whom? ed. Michael Tomlan (Ithaca: National Council for Preservation Education, 1998) 29. 8 4 Ibid, 29. 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and spokespeople for historic landmarks important to any given community, advocates should provide the gateway and framework for popular mobilization. The Coalition to Save Holiday Bowl was composed of a diverse conglomerate of individuals who supported the place for a variety of reasons. The mobilization of community members in support of the bowling alley was indicative that communities value their local resources and are willing to fight to save them. Professional advocacy groups need to better channel these local resources, first by listening to community members about the resources they consider important to the preservation of their cultural identities and then by giving them a more active role in the battle itself. Recommendations for Private Sector Programs Outside of the public realm, it is important for those in the private sector to develop programs that emphasize the importance of culturally significant resources. These might be educational programs in high schools, colleges and universities, or non-profit organizations whose programming is devoted to the identification and protection of local cultural landmarks. Many such programs already exist. When Dolores Hayden came to Los Angeles in 1979, she quickly became disillusioned by the fact that many authors of books on the history and design of American cities have ignored the working women and men of diverse ethnic groups who inhabit the urban landscape. It led her to launch “The Power of Place” in 1984 - a small non-profit corporation whose 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. purpose was to “situate women’s history and ethnic history in downtown, in public spaces, through experimental, collaborative projects by historians, designers, and artists.8 5 Hayden’s projects in places such as Boyle Heights and downtown Los Angeles were met with critical and popular acclaim and helped to make visible some of Los Angeles’s forgotten areas. Another example of a privately-sponsored program that facilitates the identification of culturally significant sites is Place Matters, which was spawned by the 1996 History Happened Here study in New York City. The vehicle through which Place Matters promotes the recognition of culturally significant sites is their “Census of Places that Matter.” The Census is a citywide survey in which anyone o / can nominate places that evoke associations with history, memory and tradition. There are no criteria for inclusion in the Census; this was a deliberate decision by Place Matters’ founders so as to be completely inclusive without bias toward particular types of resources. To date there are approximately 550 to 600 landmarks included in the Census. Some are designated City of New York Landmarks; most are not. Marti Reaven, Director of Place Matters, sees the organization as a tool for enhancing a connection between place and history. If places of cultural importance 8 5 Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995) xi. 8 6 “About Place Matters, Mission and History,” Place Matters, 2 January 2006, <http://placematters.net/ flash/about.htm>. about.htm. 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0*7 disappear, so do the traditions that are associated with them. Since Place Matters landmarks are typically not designated City landmarks, they are vulnerable to demolition and alteration. Although Place Matters does not afford protection to these sites, its success lies in its ability to provoke thought and dialogue about New York’s culturally and historically significant resources. Just as The Power of Place has helped draw attention to places that tell the truthful stories of Los Angeles’s history and development, Place Matters similarly draws attention to the places that tell the truthful stories of New York City, as told by its diverse population. As these organizations continue to identify significant cultural resources, the local populous - and hopefully the decision-makers within the local government - will begin to recognize their importance in the urban landscape. Recommendations for Commemoration One of the additional benefits of a program such as Place Matters is its ability to act as a form of documentation for resources that no longer exist. For instance, a resource that is on the Census of Places that Matter is not removed if the building is eliminated; as such, its record in the Census acts as a tribute to the importance of a place that has been demolished. Because culturally significant places are often lost in the rapid development of the nation’s cities, there is a need for creative methods of documentation and 8 7 Marci Reaven, personal interview, 13 January 2006. 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. commemoration for places that have been demolished or eliminated. In the spring of 2004, less than one year after the demolition of Holiday Bowl, local historian o o Sharon Sekhon developed the Holiday Bowl History Project. This project includes an essay, website, three-dimensional model and oral history database devoted to those who were in one way or another connected to the bowling alley. Ms. Sekhon writes that “this project, in the melancholia and morass that Holiday Bowl was left, attempts a recreation of some sort of middle ground in the spirit that the Holiday Bowl achieved. Most importantly, I want to show how the Holiday Bowl was a manifestation of the people who lived and continue to live in the Crenshaw community and who shaped the spirit of the place.”8 9 Public art is another method for the interpretation of culturally significant sites. If effective, it can engage individuals and connect them to the community in which they live. Public art has oft been criticized for being too accessible for fear of being provocative or controversial, which therefore renders it trite and ineffectual. The public art at the Holiday Bowl unfortunately falls into this category, as it has been passively executed so as to not interfere with the planned development of the strip mall. A small Japanese garden and a tile mural may inform those who were not aware of the Holiday Bowl of the past life of the building. They will not, 8 8 Sharon Sekhon, coordinator, Holiday Bowl History Project, <http://www.holidaybowlcrenshaw.com/>. 8 9 Ibid., “Introduction to the essay,” 19 March 2006, <http://www.holidaybowlcrenshaw.com/ community .htm#introduction.> 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. however, appropriately document those things that made the place significant to the community. This is not a thesis about public art, and therefore it does not presume to have the theoretical background or expertise needed to make suggestions for more effective artistic interpretation of culturally significant sites. However, it can be asserted that public art can - and should - be provocative when interpreting sites like Holiday Bowl. In his analysis of memory and commemoration in post holocaust Germany, James Young states that, “The site alone cannot remember... it is the projection of memory by visitors into a space that makes it a memorial.”9 0 In effect, public art should engage its viewer in a way that makes them ponder the significance of the intangibles that were lost with the demolition of the building, and how that has affected the community. In her book The Power o f Place, Dolores Hayden explores different methods of interpreting the urban landscape that helps promote history and public memory. “Any historic place,” she writes, “once protected and interpreted, potentially has the power to serve as a lookout for future generations who are trying to plan the future, having come to terms with the past.”9 1 It is the responsibility of preservation professionals, politicians, public historians and community members to work together to protect those sites that are culturally significant in the American landscape. In this collaboration, not only will cultural significance be better 9 0 James E. Young, “The German Counter-Monument.” Critical Inquiry, Winter (1992): 286. 9 1 Hayden, 247. 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. understood, it will serve as a touchstone for the protection of cultural identity future. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conclusion Figure 3. Earvin “Magic” Johnson addresses the community at the grand opening celebration of a new Starbucks located in the old Holiday Bowl coffee shop. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak, June 16, 2006.______________________________________________________________________ At 10:00am on June 16,2006, hundreds of Angelenos gathered outside of a new Starbucks coffee retailer in the Coliseum Center on Crenshaw Boulevard, hoping to catch a glimpse of legendary basketball player, Earvin “Magic” Johnson. They lined up with posters, basketballs and t-shirts in anticipation of an opportunity to ask the athlete for his autograph, waiting patiently in the shade of the overhanging roof of the Starbucks and out of the hot summer sun. While his fans waited, Magic addressed the community from an elevated stage placed temporarily on the 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. concrete patio, accompanied by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Councilmember Herb Wesson and California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. The occasion for this gathering was the grand opening celebration of the newest of Magic Johnson’s “Urban Coffee Opportunities” Starbucks - a joint venture between Johnson Development Corporation and Starbucks Coffee Company. Magic Johnson, a Los Angeles resident fiercely revered by his fans, praised the Coliseum Center in his remarks to the community. “Ten years ago,” he said, “we all remember what Crenshaw looked like.” Run down and dangerous, lacking vitality and the amenities enjoyed by more affluent (or, perhaps, less destitute) parts of Los Angeles. Now, as made evident by the Coliseum Center and countless additional strip malls stretching north and south on Crenshaw, the area had regained economic vitality. “Now,” Magic Johnson said, “we can shop in our neighborhood.” All took turns at the microphone: Magic Johnson, Councilmember Wesson, the Mayor and even the possible future Governor of California. Only Mr. Wesson, who represents the Tenth District on City Council, made reference to the past life of the site on which they were standing. He related that this new Starbucks is located inside the old coffee shop of a bowling alley called Holiday Bowl, which, once upon a time, was an extremely important place to the Crenshaw community. 9 2 Earvin “Magic” Johnson, public address, Grand Opening Celebration of the Coliseum Center Urban Opportunities Starbucks, Los Angeles, 16 June 2006. 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As a symbol of gratitude to Magic Johnson for bringing his Starbucks venture to the neighborhood, Mr. Wesson presented the athlete with one of the original bowling pins from Holiday Bowl, mounted to a small pedestal like a trophy. In viewing the massive turnout of community members at the opening reception, it can be assumed that a Starbucks was largely welcomed in Crenshaw. Maybe it isn’t a stretch to say that now, in a society such as ours that is driven by the economic power of corporate franchise retail, a Starbucks is the closest thing we are going to get to a “community center.” In his article Corporate Retailers and the American Ghetto: Starbucks and the Future o f South Central, Josh Sides argues that “more so than Wal-Mart or Target, the coffee-shop - at its best - is not simply a place for the exchange of commerce, but also a place for the exchange of ideas.” He continues by saying that it is important because it is “.. .a safe, quasi-public Q T space for people to talk in.” Supporters of the Coliseum Center will argue that for the abovementioned reasons, the adaptive re-use of the Holiday Bowl coffee shop as a Starbucks is appropriate in that it is a continuum in the spirit of community discourse and interaction. However, what is lost in this transaction? In a place like the Coliseum Center, a few individuals stand to make millions of dollars while the jobs created keep local community members barely above the minimum wage. There is no longer room for the entrepreneurial spirit that brought about a place such as 9 3 Josh Sides, “Corporate Retailers and the American Ghetto: Starbucks and the Future of South Central,” The Next American City [New Haven] Issue nine (2005): 39. 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Holiday Bowl. So while Crenshaw may now have the shops that other communities have, it has nothing that distinguishes it from any other neighborhood in any other American city. There is no room in this equation for entrepreneurship, cultural identity or local proprietary pride. These are issues that will plague city planners and community members for years to come. In the case of Holiday Bowl, however, its physical and immaterial remains will continue to remind Angelenos of what they are missing, even as the generations of people who used its spaces move on. The Holiday Bowl’s spirit will survive in the pages of Nina Revoyr’s renowned work of fiction, Southland. It made appearances in the play, “Broken Hearts: A B.H. Mystery” in 2000, which was written by Sonja Kuftinec and produced by Los Angeles’s Cornerstone Theater Company. Gail Dubrow and Donna Graves were so inspired by the story of the Holiday Bowl that they devoted an entire chapter to it in their book, Sento at Sixth and Main, which profiles ten places important to Japanese American heritage. The Holiday Bowl can be visited and its stories can be heard through the vehicle of the Holiday Bowl History Project, which is available online. It can also be viewed on the online interactive map, “A People’s Guide to Los Angeles,” which maps sites of racial and class struggle in Los Angeles’ history and landscape. Although the Holiday Bowl is gone and its loss still lamented, it continues to affect the popular consciousness of Los Angeles with the poignancy of its story. 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In her essay about the Holiday Bowl on the Holiday Bowl History Project website, Sharon Sekhon writes: “For those of us who live in Southern California, our landscape is much more than episodes of loss and devastation and studies of how groups contest power within the region, though clearly these are important to understanding the place. Conversely, Southern California is more than festivals and parades with which we can celebrate our past, present, and future.”9 4 Indeed, Los Angeles is a place made livable only by its residents, who create small islands of community in the vast urban spread. As places with intangible and immeasurable cultural significance such as Holiday Bowl make a home in these communities, the city becomes an even better version of itself. And, as these places meet the inevitable challenges of development and changing popular and economic demographics, there is an opportunity for historic preservation professionals, urban planners, local politicians, community members, public historians, artists and educators to collaborate in the creative process of generating something that Los Angeles desperately needs: the preservation and celebration of cultural identity in the urban landscape. 9 4 Sekhon. 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bibliography “2006 CLG Grants Manual.” California Office of Historic Preservation. 2006. 2 June 2006. <http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/ clggrantman06.doc>. “About Place Matters, Mission and History.” Place Matters. 2 January 2006. <http ://placematters.net/ flash/about.htm>. Aubry, Erin A. “Bowl Over: The end is near for a Crenshaw landmark.” LA Weekly 3 May 2000. Aubry, Erin A. “Dining: Holiday Bowl.” LA Weekly 14 July 1999. Baldock, Melissa, Director of Advocacy, Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. Personal interview. 13 January 2006. Bernstein, Ken, Director of Advocacy Issues, Los Angeles Conservancy. Letter to Robert Manford, City Planner with the City Redevelopment Agency. 7 October 2002. Bernstein, Ken, Director of Advocacy Issues, Los Angeles Conservancy. Personal interview. 20 December 2005. Bodenar, John E. Remaking America: Public Memory. Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Bricker, Lauren Weiss. “History in Motion.” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation,, History. Theory and Criticism. GSAPP. Columbia University Volume I, Number 2, Fall (2004): 5. Brooks, Graham. "The Burra Charter: Australia's Methodology for Conserving Cultural Heritage," PLACES [Cambridge] Vol. 8, Number 1 (1992): 84-88. Brown, Scott Shibuya. "Crenshaw: Littler Tokyo, although their children are grown and gone, older Japanese-Americans still evince pride, loyalty in their changing community." Los Angeles Times 3 Oct. 1993: 3. “The Burra Charter.” The International Council on Monuments and Sites- Australia Chapter. Australia/ICOMOS. 3 January 2006. <http://www.icomos.org/ australia/burra.html>. 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Campbell, Kate. “Googie Treasure to be Demolished.” Preservation Magazine 22 April 2004. Chattel, Robert J., AIA, et al. National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the Breed Street Shul. Los Angeles. CA. 8 May 2001. City of Los Angeles, Cultural Heritage Commission. Minutes. Special meeting. 9 June 2000. City of Los Angeles, Cultural Heritage Ordinance. Section 22.130 et seq. of the Administrative Code. 1962 (amended 1985). City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning. Staff Report. 4 May 2005. City of Los Angeles, Planning and Land Use Committee. Planning and Land Use Management Report. 28 November 2000. File no. 00-1382. "Council Delays Action on Holiday Bowl Status." Los Angeles Times 13 September 2000: B4. “Cultural Resource Diversity Program.” National Park Service. 16 February 2006. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/crdi/ description/prgm.htm>. Deznermio, Raul. Personal interview with Nina Revoyr. Akashic Books. 3 March 2005. <http://www.akashicbooks.com/ ninaintv.htm>. Dubrow, Gail and Donna Graves. Sento at Sixth and Main. Seattle: Seattle Arts Commission, 2002. Eguchi, Elaine. Letter to the City Redevelopment Agency. 4 October 2002. Elzy, Mildred. Letter to the City Redevelopment Agency. 1 October 2002. Engle, Todd. Letter. Los Angeles Times 8 May 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section: B8. "From Hollywood Star Lanes to Holiday Bowl: L.A. has been knocking down its historic Bowling Alleys like a bunch of worthless pins." Los Angeles Magazine 1 April 2004. 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Panel Wants Bowling Alley Preserved: Holiday Bowl should be given historic status for bringing Japanese Americans and blacks together, City Council is told." Los Angeles Times 7 July 2000: B3. Gillis, John R., ed. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Glassberg, David. Sense of History: The Place of the Past in American Life. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press: 2001. Graham, Brian, G.J. Ashworth, and J.E. Tunbridge. A Geography of Heritage. London: Oxford University Press, 2000. Griffin, Cynthia E. “Ludlow seeks investors in final effort to save Holiday Bowl.” WAVE Community Newspapers [Los Angeles] 26 September 2003. Groth, Paul and Todd W. Bressi, eds. Understanding Ordinary Lanscapes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. The Growth with Justice Coalition. “The Case for the Community Impact Report.” Partnership for Working Families. 18 June 2006. <http://www.califomiapartnership.org/downloads/CaseForCIR.pdf, 2>. Halbwachs, Maurice. The Collective Memory. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. Hardie, Warren N., Brunswick Indoor Recreation Group. Letter to Mark Zuckerman. 7 September 2000. Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995. Hess, Alan. Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1985. Hess, Alan. Letter to the Cultural Heritage Commission. 24 June 2000. Hong, Peter. "Another Kind of Holiday Bowl Tradition." Los Angeles Times 2 January 1996: B1 Hong, Peter. "Fans Again Hope to Save a Symbol of L.A. Diversity: Bowling alley and its coffee shop drew multiethnic clientele for decades and survived riots. Now it's been sold." Los Angeles Times 3 May 2003: B1 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hong, Peter. "Lanes May Be Declared Landmark: L.A. City Council will vote on designating the Holiday Bowl a monument of postwar architecture." Los Angeles Times 12 September 2000: B1 Hufford, Mary, ed. Conserving Culture: A New Discourse on Heritage. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994. Japanese American Citizen’s League. Letter to Cultural Heritage Commission. 23 June 2000. Japanese American National Museum. Letter to Cultural Heritage Commission. 20 June 2000. Johnson, Earvin “Magic.” Public address. Grand Opening Celebration of the Coliseum Center Urban Opportunities Starbucks. Los Angeles, 16 June 2006. Kaufman, Ned. History Happened Here: A Plan for Saving New York City’s Historically and Culturally Significant Sites (discussion draft). New York: Municipal Art Society of New York, 1996. Kawashima, Steve. “Shopping Complex planned at Holiday Bowl location: Land north of cherished coffee shop also in escrow with a different buyer.” Our Times [Los Angeles] 12 May 2000: 1. Klein, Norman. The History of Forgetting: Los Angeles and the Erasure of Memory. New York: Verso, 1997. Kurashige, Lon. Japanese American Celebration and Conflict: A History of Ethnic Identity and Festival in Los Angeles. 1934-1990. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Kurashige, Scott. “Can Holiday Bowl be Saved?” Rafu Shimpo [Los Angeles] 5 May 2000: 1. Kurashige, Scott. “Holiday Bowl vs. the Wrecking Ball.” Rafu Shimpo [Los Angeles] 22 June 2000: 1. Kurashige, Scott. Transforming Los Angeles: Black and Japanese American Struggles for Racial Equality in the 20th Century. Diss. University of California, Los Angeles, 2000. 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Leibowitz, Ed. "The Best...The Beautiful...and the Bizarre. THE 'SHAW Holiday Bowl: Strike or Spare?" Los Angeles Times Magazine 8 August 1999: 8. Loomis, Ormond H., coordinator. Cultural Conservation: the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the United States. Washington: Library of Congress, 1983. Lowenthal, David. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Lowenthal, David. Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. New York: The Free Press, 1996. Martinez, Martin. “Holiday Bowl Still Rollin’ for Now.” Our Times [Los Angeles] 28 May 1999: 2. Mejia, Edward. “Personal Interview with Arthur Sutton.” Holiday Bowl History Project. Sharon Sekhon, coordinator. 2004. 21 Feburary 2006. <http://www.holidaybowl crenshaw.com/oralhistorydb/index.php?a=view&id =10>. More Than A Game: Sport in the Japanese American Community. Exhibition, April 2000 - February 2001. Japanese American National Museum, Los Angeles. Mulloy, Elizabeth D. The History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1963-1973. Washington D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1976. National Bowling Association Senate. Letter to Cultural Heritage Commission. 30 June 2000. “The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.” Public Law 102-575, Section 1, Part (b)(2). National Park Service. 24 May 2006. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/nhpal966.htm>. National Trust for Historic Preservation. With Heritage So Rich. Washington, D.C.: The Preservation Press, 1966. Noxon, Christopher. “Bowled Over: Movement to save Holiday Bowl as Los Angeles architectural landmark.” Los Angeles Magazine December 2000. Oliver, Lela Ward. “A blemish on former 10th District Councilman’s career may end up being a beauty mark.” Los Angeles Sentinel 6 November 2003: A1. 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Oren, Jay. Personal statement addressed to Planning and Land Use Management Committee and City Council. 12 September 2000. Page, Max and Randall Mason, eds. Giving Preservation a History. New York: Routledge, 2004. Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Register Bulletin 38. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1990. PCR Services Corporation. Environmental Impact Report, ‘Coliseum Center.’ October 2002. PCR Services Corporation. Holiday Bowl. Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation. HABS No. CA-2775. September 2003. “Preservation Alerts and Issues.” Los Angeles Conservancy 27 June 2006. <http://www.laconservancy.org/issues/issues_main.php4>. Pulido, Laura. A People’s Guide to Los Angeles. 2 January 2006. <http://www.pgtla.org/>. Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Reaven, Marci, Director, Place Matters. Personal interview. 13 January 2006. Revoyr, Nina. Southland. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001. Saito, John Jr. “End of an Era: Holiday Bowl, 1958-2000.” Rafa Shimno [Los Angeles] 12 May 2000: 1. Saito, John Jr. ‘“We Knew We Would Succeed:’ Harry Oshiro and three co founders capitalized on a big demand among Nisei when it built Holiday Bowl in 1958.” Rafu Shimno [Los Angeles] 12 May 2000: 1. Samad, A. Asadullah. “An Appeal: Few days before ‘Bowling Alone’ becomes a permanent reality.” Los Angeles Sentinel 18 September 2003: A7. Schindler, Bonnie. “Crenshaw Holiday Bowl Focus of Lecture Series.” Daily Troian [Los Angeles] 1 October 2004. 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Seamon, David, ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Sekhon, Sharon, coordinator. Holiday Bowl History Project. 21 Feburary 2006. <http://www.holidaybowlcrenshaw.com/>. Shockley, Jay, Research Associate, New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Personal interview. 12 January 2006. Sides, Josh. "Corporate Retailers and the American Ghetto: How Starbucks May Help Save South Central." The Next American City [New Haven] Issue 9 (2005). Sides, Josh. L.A. City Limits: African American Los Angeles from the Great Depression to the Present. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Stipe, Robert E., ed. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. Durham: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Stipe, Robert E. and Antoinette J. Lee, eds. The American Mosaic. Preserving the Nation’s Heritage. Washington, D.C.: US/ICOMOS, 1987. Terry, Don. “Last Rites for a Cherished ‘Landmark of Diversity,”’ The New York Times 8 May 2000: A14. Tomlan, Michael A., ed. Preservation: Of What? For Whom? Ithaca: The National Council for Preservation Education, 1998. Widener, Daniel. "Perhaps the Japanese are to be Thanked? Asia, Asian Americans, and the Construction of Black California." Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique Durham: Duke University Press, January 2003. Wilson, Chris, ed. Everyday America: Cultural Landscape Studies after J.B. Jackson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Young, James E. “The German Counter-Monument.” Critical Inquiry Winter 1992: 286. 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A: Holiday Bowl, Chronology of Events 1942: February 19, President Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066, the forced removal and incarceration of all Japanese Americans in the western United States 1945: Japanese Americans are released from internment 1950: The American Bowling Congress lifts the ban on non-white bowlers playing in tournaments and sporting events 1957: December 1, the Los Angeles Times announces the construction of Holiday Bowl on Crenshaw Boulevard 1958: Holiday Bowl opens for business 1965: August 11-16, the Watts Riots begin, resulting in 34 deaths, 1,000 wounded and over $40 million in damages 1986: Holiday Bowl patron George “Juggie” Furukawa is shot in the hip during a robbery in the bowling alley parking lot 1988: Civil Rights Act passed and signed by President Ronald Reagan 1992: April 29, the acquittal of Los Angeles police officers for the beating of Rodney King results in widespread rioting, lasting until May 5 and resulting in 55 deaths, 2,300 injuries and $785 million in property damages. Locals stand in front of the Holiday Bowl to protect it from rioters; it suffers no damage 1994: December 31, Holiday Bowl is sold to new owners 2000: April 29-30, during the last weekend of operation at Holiday Bowl, patrons collect more than 800 signatures in an attempt to convince the owner to keep the bowling alley open May 7, Holiday Bowl shuts its doors May 8, an article about Holiday Bowl’s closure titled “Last Rites for a Cherished ‘Landmark of Diversity”’ appears in The New York Times 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. July 6, the Cultural Heritage Commission votes to include Holiday Bowl on the list of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments; the decision needs City Council approval for ratification September 11, the Arts, Health and Humanities Committee meets and recommends that City Council ratify the Cultural Heritage Commission’s decision to include the Holiday Bowl on the list of Los Angeles Historic- Cultural Monuments October 24, Councilmember Nate Holden of the Tenth District Council Office opposes monument status for the Holiday Bowl, citing interest in the site for a new retail development. City Council delays decision due to the disparity in opinion among council members November 14, it is recommended that only the coffee shop portion of Holiday Bowl be included on the list of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments, leaving the bowling alley itself vulnerable to demolition December 19, the coffee shop and neon sign of Holiday Bowl are officially adopted as Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument #688. The bowling alley itself is excluded from monument status 2002 October, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the “Coliseum Center” retail development is released to the public for comment. The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) receives hundreds of letters from all parts of the country pleading that the Agency spare the bowling alley from demolition November 7, the EIR is certified by the CRA 2003: May 20, Nate Holden is replaced by new councilmember Martin Ludlow October, PCR services completes HABS recordation of the Holiday Bowl October, the Holiday Bowl bowling alley is demolished Publication and release of Nina Revoyr’s novel, Southland. Ms. Revoyr cites Holiday Bowl as one of the primary sources of inspiration for the book, which is a story of race, family, murder and history against the backdrop of Los Angeles 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2005: May, a plan for public art at the site of the former Holiday Bowl is finalized by the Cultural Heritage Commission 2006: The “Coliseum Center” is completed and open for business. June 16, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Councilmember Herb Wesson and California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides gather to celebrate the grand opening of the latest of Mr. Johnson’s Urban Coffee Opportunities Starbucks coffee retailers, located in the former Holiday Bowl coffee shop 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B: Holiday Bowl, Selected Photographs 1. Former site of the Holiday Bowl, March 2005. The building under construction is now Walgreen’s drugstore. The Holiday Bowl coffee shop is to the left. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak.____________________________ 2. The Holiday Bowl coffee shop, March 2005. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak. 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3. The Holiday Bowl coffee shop rehabilitated and transformed into a Starbucks, May 2006. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak, 4. The Coliseum Center under construction, May 2006. The Holiday Bowl coffee shop is to the left. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. " 1 5. Interior of Starbucks, with a view of the tile mural by Richard Wyatt. The mural was a component of the public art project. Photograph by Kathryn Horak, May 2006. 6. Small concrete patio to the south of Starbucks. In the foreground is “Japanese Garden,” by artist Masayuki Oda, which was also a component of the public art project. Photograph by Kathryn Horak, May 2006.______ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. K e n y a [ loplft S id n in n loctea S a n a u i A sia/P aein c 7. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and serving coffee at the grand opening of the Starbucks on June 16, 2006. Photograph taken by Christeen Taniguchi. 8. An original bowling pin from the Holiday Bowl, presented to Magic Johnson in gratitude for bringing Starbucks to Crenshaw. June 16, 2006. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9. The old Holiday Bowl neon sign, now sharing its pedestal. June 16,2006. Photograph taken by Kathryn Horak._______________________________________________________________ 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The Freeman House: A case for the expansion of significance

PDF

Preserving modernist architecture

PDF

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

PDF

A method for glare analysis

PDF

"La Gazette du Bon Ton: Arts, Modes, and Frivolites": An analysis of fashion and modernity through the lens of a French journal de luxe

PDF

Constructions of Americanism: Three case studies

PDF

Epistemologies of embodiment in the new reproductive technologies: A case study of gestational surrogacy

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Eccentric braced frames: A new approach in steel and concrete

PDF

Expectancies for alternative behaviors predict drinking problems: A test of a cognitive reformulation of the matching law

PDF

Determine the optimum block type for use in Saudi Arabia

PDF

Depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents: A study of acculturation and gender role beliefs

PDF

Computer aided design and manufacture of membrane structures Fab-CAD

PDF

Applications of the non-Gaussian stable process to communication engineering

PDF

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

PDF

Familiality and environmental risk factors of peptic ulcer: A twin study

PDF

Creamy or chunky: The pursuit of consumer bliss and the application of paint

PDF

Exhalation: An essay on the art practice of Sarah E. Lovett

Asset Metadata

Creator Horak, Kathryn E. (author)

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

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Historic Preservation

Degree Program Historic Preservation

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

Tag Architecture,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Briesch, Kenneth (committee chair)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-56800

Unique identifier UC11328658

Identifier 1441742.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-56800 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1441742.pdf

Dmrecord 56800

Document Type Thesis

Rights Horak, Kathryn E.

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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