Category: Arts & Architecture

Posted onArts & Architecture

“Public Art” on the Lemon Street Overpass; Are The Inmates Running The Asylum?

by 15 Comments on “Public Art” on the Lemon Street Overpass; Are The Inmates Running The Asylum?

No, that’s not just crazy talk.

I was just sent the next Public Art Commission’s agenda in which City Staff is proposing that over $100,000 be spent “restoring” those dubious murals that adorn the Lemon Street pedestrian overpass. Here’s the text of the staff report:

ATTACHMENT A
Staff Recommendation for Public Art

After reviewing reports and treatment proposals from contracted professional art historians and conservators, staff has a recommendation for how to proceed with the Lemon Park Murals.  The goal of this recommendation is to make progress on the restoration of these important historical pieces of public art in a way that is fiscally responsible and takes into account the directive of the Public Art Committee to continually produce new works while maintaining the City’s rich existing collection.  We therefore propose that restoration take place over 5 years.  The proposed preliminary plan is as follows:

Year One:

Fall, 2010

Work with the Public Art Committee to revise the list of potential locations for new/restored work to be produced over the next 5 years.

Spring, 2011

Restore “Zoot Suit Riots.” using the services of a professional mural restoration team.  The cleaning, consolidation of paint and coating layers, graffiti removal, reintegration (touch-ups) and protection is estimated to total $18,000.  “Zoot Suit Riots” is an ideal starting place for mural restoration because the historical significance of the subject matter and its strong aesthetic appeal, and key location.

NOTE: Lemon Park and Maple Community Center renovation project will be under construction in the period beginning between summer – fall 2011.  The construction period is estimated at 9 months.  The start date for construction will be pending Lemon Park Committee review/recommendation, although it is likely to start in the fall of 2011, to avoid disrupting summer youth programs at the park.

Spring – Summer (production), 2011

Neighborhood youth will be recruited (coordinated with City summer youth programs at Maple Center) to design and execute a new mural that expresses the themes of cultural pride and community solidarity originally intended by the mural entitled “Fullerton.”  The existing mural, which is much degraded and heavily vandalized, will be thoroughly documented and covered with a protective varnish, then painted over.  The new mural will be processed through the standard application and review procedure by the Public Art Committee. It will be produced by neighborhood teens under the supervision of a professional artist and with input from the Lemon Park Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, and will take its place thematically and visually in the suite of paintings that makes up the entire park.

Fall, 2011
The Public Art Committee will oversee the production of a new, permanent public art piece at the main stage in the downtown plaza.

Year Two:

2012

Restoration of “The Virgin of Guadalupe” and “Girl with Car. Estimated cost (combined) of $32,000.

Based on progress on the Transportation Center Master Plan, we will install a new piece of public art in the pedestrian corridor between Spadra restaurant and the bus depot.  Suggestions for this area include three-dimensional awning type installations that invite access to the transportation center and visually expand the downtown and event area south of Commonwealth.

Year Three:

2013

Restore “Calle Elm” and “Come Back Again” by a professional mural restoration team. Combined cost of $24,640

Produce a new piece based on Public Art Committee recommendations

Year  Four:

2014
Restore “La Adelita” and “Cross with Crown of Thorns.” Estimate (combined) cost of $26,000

Produce a new piece based on Public Art Committee recommendations.

Year Five:

2015

After four years of restoration we will have some idea how the Lemon/Maple murals are faring and how the new mural produced in year one has been received by the community.  With this experience the Committee can develop recommendations for “Brown Car.”  This mural has been vandalized numerous times and sustained considerable additional damage since the November, 2008 preliminary report.  Based on the current rate of destructive activity, staff does not believe that the estimated $21,000 required for a thorough restoration would be fiscally responsible.  Two possibilities present themselves:  we could invest in moderate restoration and additional anti graffiti coating to keep the mural intact for as long as possible despite what seems to be relentless vandalism.  Or we could document the piece, cover it, and create a new mural under the direction of a professional artist and with the input of community groups such as the Lemon Park Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.  Both options present obstacles and opportunities and it is hoped that our experience restoring the other pieces of the original suite over the preceding 4 years will equip us to make a wise choice in 2015.

Note:  The murals “The Town I Live In”  “Niños del Mundo” and “La Mujer Latina” are in relatively good condition at this time and are not included in this 5-year restoration plan.  They will be maintained as needed (graffiti removed, coatings restored, etc.)

Public Art Committee Agenda
July 26, 2010

These paintings have been the source of some controversy for quite some time. Critics question the gang references as well as the deterioration and gang graffiti they seem to invite. Others doubt the artistic value.

Although some folks in the community have suddenly taken a proprietary interest in the murals, this interest doesn’t seem to extend to actually paying to clean them up.

In 1995 the restoration of the Kassler Mural on the side of the Plummer Auditorium only cost about $25,000 – of which half was made up of a matching Redevelopment grant. Hundreds upon hundreds of volunteer hours were spent stripping and cleaning that work of art. That participation proved the value to the community.

So the question is: who really wants to “restore” the Lemon Bridge murals, and what are they willing to pay for it?

Read More
Posted onArts & Architecture

“Would you support our efforts to make our neighborhood historic?”

by 20 Comments on “Would you support our efforts to make our neighborhood historic?”

I received this post from a Friend who wishes to remain anonymous for reasons that you may understand after you read this post.

Think historic neighborhoods. Immediately, one’s mind goes to such places such as Bungalow Heaven in Pasadena, Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia and others where houses, landscape, and layout reflect a distinct architectural coherence.

What we don’t think of is the hodgepodge of homes built over a span of more than fifty years within the boundaries of Skyline, Frances, Luanne, Canon and Lemon here in Fullerton. True, the neighborhood has a sort of charm. But this four block area (oddly denuded of trees) doesn’t fit the definition as historic.

Yet, for over twenty years, this neighborhood has been besieged by a small but persistent group to designate itself as such. The original movement came about when a neighbor (who has since moved away) decided the mix of 60’s ranch homes, 30’s Spanish Mediterranean  and 80’s boxes needed to be protected.

Why? Because the empty lot behind her house, which she had enjoyed as her own personal open space, was going to have a house built upon it.  This led to a movement asking for historical designation, with one very vociferous neighbor putting out a letter decrying such crimes as pink flamingos in yards. It ended when a flock of roving pink flamingos went from yard to yard, to rebuke this snobbishness. It was clear then, as it is now, that the historic designation is more to control everything from the color of homes, the installation of skylights, solar panels, to pink flamingos in yards.

In more recent years, the issue was raised again when a member of the Fullerton Heritage group moved into the neighborhood.  This woman could often be seen taking photographs of her neighbor’s homes. She personally crossed the boundaries of neighborliness by posting a photo of one on their website as an example of “muddled and conflicted” architecture. Battle axes were raised when during a neighborhood meeting, an argument ensued. This busybody sat in the back, mute –rendering herself all but invisible. At no point did she offer any explanation why this issue meant so much to her that she was willing to pit neighbor against neighbor.

The reasons for not wanting this ridiculous designation are simple.

1.     There’s no consistent architectural coherence in the boundaries of Lemon, Skyline, Frances, Luanne and Canon. While there are individual examples of historically significant architectural styles, as a neighborhood – it lacks consistency and coherence.

2. It would give Fullerton Heritage – and the City Planning Department far too much power over our neighborhood. Note, they already have ultimate veto power over designs submitted to the city for everything from new development to remodeling in other neighborhoods designated as a historical zone. In one neighborhood, they vetoed the homeowner’s request to install a skylight. Such oversight is petty, and subject to the changing whims of the board.

3. This will lead to more “fake old” McSpanish architecture. Another uninformed member of the Fullerton Heritage group noted at a meeting at Hillcrest Park that she thought the predominant style in the neighborhood should be “Spanish Mediterranean,” whatever that means.

4.     The $1000 fee for the designation doesn’t even begin to cover the costs of actual staff time. In addition, this doesn’t cover the costs of ordered revisions by the owner’s architects or engineers. Fees like this are never gotten rid of, rather, the fee could be raised and the neighborhood would have no control over the amount they have to pay.

5.     The city of Fullerton has a permit process already in place. This is an added layer of bureaucracy with not only more additional staff time needed, but oversight from an outside organization (Fullerton Heritage).

6.     A small cadre of neighbors has already been vociferous to the point of rudeness about things they don’t like: the color of a neighbor’s home, plantings, flamingos, and more. Worse, their gossip has hit people in ways that have become personal. While we realize they are voicing their opinion, we’d hate to give them permission to authorize or disapprove on any official level.

At some point one must work with and trust the neighbors.  Most of the neighbors who support this notion have lived in the area for 40 years without the intervention of the city. Why they think they should leave future generations with a law to be enforced long after they have enjoyed their own latitude –is for reasons of ego.  While the notion of a historic neighborhood seems appealing, in reality it is cumbersome, vague and will leave future homeowner’s with no choice but to deal with more government and bureaucracy. It was clear twenty years ago as it is now:  these people need to get a life.

All we can do is work with one another, and be neighborly but not meddlesome.

Read More
Posted onArts & Architecture

When is An Historic Resource Not An Historic Resource?

by 20 Comments on When is An Historic Resource Not An Historic Resource?

As quickly as you can, Grasshopper, snatch the park from its owners...

When it’s Fullerton’s Hillcrest Park, of course. Then it’s a resource of a different kind: an opportunity for City Staff to play upon the sentimentality of Fullerton’s park and history lovers to destroy the very resource that is ostensibly being saved.

They did it 15 years ago and they are doing it again.

I went to Saturday’s latest public meeting to “save the park” and witnessed something quite remarkable. Just like last time the City staff has employed a consultant to remake the park in its own desired form, replete with new facilities it can market or operate, while ignoring the true needs of the old girl.

But this time the ludicrousness of the whole operation became apparent immediately. A representative of the landscape architect hired to foist the exploitative plan informed us all what was wrong with Hillcrest Park. It has bad chi. And all these years we just thought it was neglect by the parks and police departments. Chi. Hmm.

So what’s the solution to clean up the chi and get things all aligned, nice and proper?

A restaurant, for one thing, down by the duck pond; and a new park entrance; new retaining walls along the Brea Creek and an abandonment of the interior roadways might just get that troublesome chi back in balance, we were informed.

Ye Gods! Chi. What’s next, park feng shui?

Use the Force, Luke...

I don’t know how much we’re paying these yahoos to further destroy our park, but I’ll bet it’s a lot. And I’ll also bet that Redevelopment money is picking up at least part of the tab. And ultimately the only way to pay to comprehensively destroy this historic resouce is to use big piles of Redevelopment money to do it. Redevelopment destroying historic resources. That’s not a new theme.

Hillcrest Park is on the National Register of Historic places but nobody seems to treat it like it were. Only last year the City embarked on massive alterations to the north slope of the park without review by the Landmarks Commission.

Well, good luck Hillcrest. And in the meantime may the chi be with you.

Read More
Posted onArts & Architecture

Should We Subsidize the Muck?

by 7 Comments on Should We Subsidize the Muck?

We received this letter from a “Mr. Ed” on the subject of the the Muckenthaler Cultural Center:

The Fullerton City Council will hold their final meetings on the fiscal year 2011 budget on June 1 & 2.  I am aware of one contentious item on the agenda:  elimination of the $80,000 annual cash grant to the Muckenthaler Center Cultural Foundation (MCCF).  It should be noted the $80,000 cash grant is part of the City’s support which totals about $200,000 a year.

At the first budget meeting in March the Parks & Recreation Department proposed cuts to all groups under its jurisdiction, i.e., youth sports programs (Little League, Pop Warner, Rangers Soccer, etc.), Senior Citizens Center, Fullerton Museum Center, and MCCF, to name a few.  The MCCF was the only group that objected, claiming they were being unfairly singled out.  All other groups realized the magnitude of the situation the City was facing and accepted what was being proposed.

At the March meetings councilwomen Quirk and Keller were supportive of the cut for the MCCF:  Quirk for the full $80,000 being proposed by Parks & Recreation and Keller for a $40,000 reduction.  Councilmen Bankhead and Jones were against any cuts but seemed to indicate they could go along with a $20,000 reduction.  Councilman Nelson suggested exploring some alternatives for privatizing the Senior Center and the City’s cultural programs.

Privatization is not the answer.  The MCCF was privatized 16 years ago.  In 1994 Fullerton ceded control of the facility to the MCCF.  The City retained ownership and maintenance responsibility of the grounds and building.  At that time the MCCF stated they could run the facility more cheaply and efficiently if the City was not involved.  All they needed was three years of financial support from the City and after that they would be on their own.

Sixteen years later the MCCF is still on the dole to the extent of about $200,000 per year.  The city has spent over $3,000,000 in support over the past 16 years with no discernible benefit to the taxpaying citizens of Fullerton.

Councilmen Bankhead and Jones felt the MCCF was not on firm financial footing and needed continued assistance from the City. The director of the MCCF was and is pleading for the public to “Save the Muck”.

The Muckenthaler does not need saving!

The last published financial statement shows the MCCF has cash and investments of $590,000 and total revenues of about $650,000.  It also shows the MCCF realized a surplus of $99,000 for the fiscal year ending June 2009.  Of the $650,000 in total revenues approximately $250,000 is attributable to wedding receptions Colette’s Catering, a private company, holds on the grounds of this publicly owned facility.

The current arrangement has the taxpayers subsidizing two private entities:  the MCCF and Colette’s Catering.  We can no longer allow this waste of taxpayers’ money to continue.

Rather than continuing the current arrangement with the MCCF a powerful case can be made that the facility should be placed back under the city’s management. This option would allow the citizens of Fullerton to benefit from the facility rental income.  Another option would be for the MCCF to reimburse the City annually for the $200,000 that Fullerton spends to maintain the building and grounds.  Both cases would be a net saving to the city of about $200,000 per year.  This would go a long way in helping alleviate the budgetary problems we are facing.

Read More
Posted onArts & Architecture

One Big Happy $23 Million Community Center

by 8 Comments on One Big Happy $23 Million Community Center

Last week, before all of the excitement about Coyote Hills and the one term history of Pam Keller, the Fullerton City Council approved the conceptual plan for a new community center.  This eighth wonder of the world is to be built right across the street from city hall and the main library.  The existing Boys and Girls Club and the Senior Center will be demolished to make room for it.

This $23 million mostly redevelopment funded project is supposed to be necessary because half of the city’s Parks and Rec programs are farmed out to other cities, and it would be so much nicer to have them under one new roof right downtown, near the new lingerie shop.  The fifty plus year old B & G Club is considered to be beyond repair and the senior center, which isn’t really that old in the grand scheme of things is somehow inadequate.  OK, so neither is an architectural masterpiece, but is it really necessary to tear them both down for this new combined community center?

The idea seems to have been to somehow “activate” the corner of Commonwealth and Highland, making it more a part of the library/city hall/police station/baseball field district.  To that end, the architect has included one of those pretty, and pretty useless medians down the center of Commonwealth, and a little welcoming plaza on the north side.  Placing the huge double gymnasium right up against Commonwealth doesn’t do much to activate the corner, however.

The kids, seniors and everyone in between can all interact as part of one big happy community, except that they still have their own buildings, just closer together than the current ones are, for more togetherness, I guess.  There is a third building they do get to share, just to teach them all a lesson.  You see, it’s a “multigenerational facility”, except that not everyone wants to be so together.

Several seniors have expressed concerns about having to be so close to boisterous young people while they are busy trying to relax with people of their own age group.  As far as I know, no youngsters have yet complained about having to be close to old people, but who knows if anyone asked them during the long, long planning process.

Kids enter from the Commonwealth entrance while seniors use an entrance from the larger, southern parking lot adjacent to the senior center.  This arrangement makes sense if no old people have to ride the bus to get there.  You see, the bus stop is way out on Commonwealth, so seniors would have to walk through crowds of kids all the way down the central axis of the project, to get to the safety of the senior center, which is closest to the railroad tracks.

A seventy-five year old man at the hearing asked why the noisy gym and swimming pool weren’t placed nearest the railroad tracks instead of a facility used by the aged.  The ever helpful and certainly senior Dr. Dick Jones suggested that seniors were hard of hearing anyway before voting to approve the plan.  Not to be outdone, even more senior Don Bankhead addressed a concern about the new Commonwealth median restricting bicycle traffic by asserting that it is perfectly legal to ride on the sidewalk in Fullerton —presumably right through seniors exiting a bus.

Read More
Posted onArts & Architecture

Coyote Hills Brouhaha; Tonight at 5:00

by 19 Comments on Coyote Hills Brouhaha; Tonight at 5:00

Tonight we have the first of a two-meeting public hearing at City Hall to discuss West Coyote Hills.  Actually, after reading tonight’s agenda, it looks like council just might clear the way for the bulldozers.  If you have something to say to the council members, tonight’s your chance, just show up early.

If Councilman Shawn Nelson wins the 4th Supervisorial District race, we will have three council seats to fill in November.  Tonight’s meeting could be the nail in the political coffin for some of council members no matter how they vote.  West Coyote Hills isn’t new to City Hall and it has been a hot-button issue for environmentalists and residents in La Habra and Fullerton for decades.  There are those who see an opportunity to generate desperately needed tax revenue while others see their open spaces shrinking and pollution growing.  Whichever side of the fence you are on, I think we can all agree that this has been one political football that has been fumbled for far too long.  There are pros and cons to this development just like any other.

The meeting is scheduled for 5PM in the council chambers (303 W. Commonwealth Ave.).  As I mentioned, it will be a full house, standing room only, so show up early to get your chance to either support or oppose the development.

Read More