Friends For Fullerton's Future
FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Downtown Fullerton is characterized by bars, dance clubs, restaurants, specialty stores and coffee shops. But mostly bars and dance clubs.
The Orange Line is comming to town, perhaps at the wrong time. Not only did the OCTA use eminent domain to grab 8 acres of property from my brother, but they also removed much-needed parking at the Transportation Center before the new parking structure was built. Talk about a bumbling construction schedule. Oh well that’s government for you.
We’ve made a pretty big deal on this blog about the use of brick veneer, specifically, the way our Redevelopment Agency has always insisted on slathering it on to stuff to try to give the false appearance of historic structure, or under the guise of matching what is supposed to be the building material par excellence of downtown Fullerton: red brick.
We thought it was about time to get an historical perspective on the uses of architectural veneer – particularly masonry veneer, and so we have once again called upon the good offices of Dr. Ralph E. Haldemann, Professor or Art History (Emeritus) at Otterbein College, and our adjunct Arts and Architecture Editor. Doc?
The question of the role of veneers in architectural history is really quite fascinating, but requires an amount (admittedly minimal) of erudition. I will try to sum up some thoughts on the subject.
In pre-modern times the nature of building materials basically necessitated that structural materials were de facto finished materials as well – although historical exceptions are not uncommon: we know of course, that the Romans during the Imperial Era were fond of using stone veneers on brick buildings to dress them up. Such uses of marble veneer were often used in the Western Mediterranean basin countries in Romanesque and Italian/Venetian Gothic buildings.
The use of plaster cement or lime-based coatings on brick, especially non-fired brick, has an ancient lineage that reaches forward into the adobe buildings of California’s own Mission period; however neither this application nor the modern use of lath and plaster on studs can be considered a veneer.
Medieval Europe, particularly in the non-deforested climes of the north, saw a rise in timber construction in which the structural members were exposed and the interstitial areas filled with plastered wattling. Again, such fill even though non-structural, cannot rightly be called a veneer.
With the advent of structural iron and steel, fill materials in modern commercial architecture remained brick (for practical and fireproofing reasons). However, terra cotta facings with ceramic finishes attached to the underlying structure became the norm from the 1890s through the 1920s; the wide adoption of moderne styles in the 20s and 30s often replaced highly detailed terra cotta with simpler and smoother concrete and even ceramic tile finishes. These uses generally applied a finished masonry surface over an unfinished substrate of common brick. These are veneers.
It was really in American domestic architecture that brick veneers (almost exclusively brick) captured the imagination of a growing bourgeois sensibility. After the industrial age had ushered in standardized lumber, machine made nails and mass produced balloon-frame wood houses, a longing for the perceived hominess and historicity of brick set in. This was aided by several cultural American Colonial Revivals, particularly in the early 20th Century that coincided nicely with eras of vast suburban expansion. It was all mostly a real eastate come-on.
The use of phony brick surfaces continued unabated in the little cracker box houses of the ’50s and persists happily to this very day, particularly in subdivisions where an emotional attachment to American historical antecedents is being peddled.
The use of fake brick fronts in commercial areas followed the same suburban trajectory as the use of the material in domiciles. It too persits today, particularly where city fathers and chambers of commerce wish to deal out a conjured up historical image for their otherwise unremarkable and humble burgs.
Modern architectural theory held that this sort of use of non-structural masonry veneer is fundamentally non-truthful, meretricious and basically a middlebrow (or lower) affectation. And so it is! And yet the Robert Venturi school of Post-Modernists embraced such use for its exuberance, color and tactile properties, as well as potential (often ironical) historical connotations. However it must be said that when the historical connotation is wrong, or the deployment is meant to be deceptive or even slavish, a real aestheic problem exists; and can, if left uncontrolled, lead to real civic embarrassment.
Ralph E. Haldemann, Ph.D.
Remember those horror movies when the outraged villagers grabbed their pitchforks to have at the monster? What the “Fox Village” monster could use are a few more angry villagers.
At the City Council “workshop” on Tuesday the new plans for the existing city-created empty space behind the Fox Theater were rolled out. And while the reception by the public wasn’t pretty it wasn’t enough to kill off the monster, either.
What was rolled out were several elevations that raised the curtain on a hideously confused jumble of themes and materials that were supposed to be modernish, but that had that certain flavor of architectural renderings done by crazy people.
A hodgepodge of shapes and veneers with no apparent cohesion and not a whiff of aesthetic originality. Stone veneer on the first floor obligatory.
Have Fox Villagers gone insane? What a mish mash!
Why are they still trying to move McDonald’s? Didn’t the Council put that idea to rest? And yet here it is again! Can anyone say “insubordination”? Guess not – in Fullerton! And look a parking lot on the corner. Just what downtown needs – another permanent hole in the building fabric of downtown Fullerton.
Ah, the inevitable “pedestrian paseo.” Just lookit all the happy, bedazzled consumers. And that fountain! Precious. Makes you want to make a wish and toss three coins in.
Folks if you aren’t ready to go grab your pitchforks by now, we suggest that we stick a fork in you – because we think you’re done.
City staff is back to hustle the infamous Fox Block project after it was killed by city council earlier this year. The project was shot down by a suddenly-fiscally-conservative council majority because it included a $6 million dollar giveaway to the McDonalds corporation that would be used to build a brand new fast food restaurant and hand it over to the corporation in exchange for a lesser property that the Redevelopment Agency “needs” to complete the project.
An email from the Fullerton Historical Theater Foundation urges supporters to show up at the study session on Tuesday night to voice opinions on the project. The email also included a first glimpse at the redesigned project:
The rest of the drawings do not seem to be available yet, probably because staff prefers the public to be disarmed of the facts when the meeting begins. That way it’s easier to control the presentation: wax the upsides, minimize the downsides and keep those pesky residents from vocally questioning the dubious aspects of this project.
Judging from the angry crowd that attended the last study session on the Fox Block, the discussion will center around:
So come on down to the Police Department Mural Room on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. It should be interesting.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the good folks at City Hall to provide a public update on the drawn-out Amerige Court saga. They would just as soon you don’t know while they work out a deal behind the scenes.
Well, if they won’t we will. To that end we sent out our crack team of investigative reporters and found out a few things.
As many of the friends doubtless know, the original partnership – Pelican/Laing – that was getting all of the Redevelopment gravy: free land, super-high density, etc. etc., is no more. John Laing Homes went into receivership. But we have been informed by our sources that before they declared under Chapter 11 they managed to offload their interest in the Amerige Court project to their erstwhile partners, Pelican. We suspect that they sold out for pennies on the dollar to salvage something before a bankruptcy court judge could lock things up.
The possibility of a kickback to former Laing employees is hard to ignore, and we hope that this thought will occur to the bankruptcy judge, too. The City granted entitlements were and are, worth millions to somebody who can actually seal the deal.
The Redevelopment Agency staff is aware of all this, and rather than start over will no doubt push hard for the Agency to accept this new arrangement, if they haven’t already. It’s hard to see the Pelican boys getting financing to build a birdhouse these days, but many options are open including selling off the whole mess to somebody else. They may also try to repackage the deal in a “softer” format to makes sure they can get the green light.
So the time is ripe to call City Council members who voted for this huge subsidized eyesore. Keller, Quirk-Silva, and Shawn Nelson have an opportunity to correct their previous mistake and do the right thing by the people of Fullerton. Bankhead and Jones are, of course, far beyond hope, but you can try them, too, if you care to.
UPDATE: THE CITY COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE UP THE MATTER OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE AND ITS DESIGN AT TODAY’S MEETING. SINCE WE REPORTED ON THIS ISSUE CITY STAFF HAS REFUSED TO CHANGE ITS LUDICROUS POSTION THAT THE FAKE BRICK SOMEHOW SATISFIES SOME SORT OF CEQA REQUIREMENT – EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED THE MYTH OF BRICK AND REALITY OF BRICK VENEER IN DOWNTOWN FULLERTON.
SUCH A LAME APPROACH INSULTS NOT ONLY OUR AESTHETIC SENSIBILITIES, BUT IT ALSO TURNS THE WHOLE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS INTO A CHARADE THAT JUST SECURES FOR STAFF WHAT THEY WANT: BRICK VENEER.
CONSIDER THIS: THE MONEY SAVED BY ELIMINATING THE USELESS BRICK COULD GO TO ESTABLISHING SOLAR PANELS ON THE BUILDING AND ENHANCING ITS SUSTAINABILITY QUOTIENT.
They just can’t seem to help themselves. Not long ago the City held a “stake holder” gathering that was supposed to display three alternative plans for the proposed new parking structure on Santa Fe Avenue. No sooner had the meeting begun than it became apparent it was going to be one of those typical “here’s what we’re doing so sit down and shut up” meetings.
The image above shows what the City wants the building to look like. The architectural elements look okay except for the hideous brick veneer – that tomato soup colored stuff you see on the building. Brick veneer. The lazy Redevelopment bureaucrat’s material of choice. We recently wrote about it in a pithy post here.
Why would anybody put a brick veneer on a concrete parking structure? Who would put lipstick on a pig? Brick panels spanning impossibly long spaces look simply idiotic – even to the layman who could sense intuitively that brick has little tensile strength; but unfortunately this type of masquerade is par for Fullerton’s aesthetic course – displaying once again the curious parochialism of Fullerton’s taste makers.
But brick veneer is not only stupid architecturally, but is a big waste of money, to boot. And it contradicts the General Plan Advisory Committee’s adopted “sustainability” policy in the General Plan Update, since it serves no function and will have to be replaced when it falls off.
Fortunately it’s not too late to make the right choice here. But we’re not holding our breath.
The Fullerton Interfaith Emergency Services (FIES) is a non-profit collaboration of local folks whose mission is to help people of marginal means subsist, learn job skills, and for some, transitional housing is provided in the FIES compound in the west 500 block of Amerige Avenue.
Imagine the surprise of the tenants at 504 W. Amerige when they recently received eviction notices from their landlord. It seems FIES wants to buy the multi-family property located next to their current assemblage of properties, and the residents have to go. Apparently there are several families living on this property including several kids and even an infant. Some have been living there for over fifteen years and must like it.
It seems nobody at FIES has made it their business to inquire about the fate of the current tenants who now have to find a new home with a comparable rent, and will somehow have to scratch up a new first/last payment on a new place; or if they did, perhaps they dismissed it as not their problem.
We don’t think it’s real nice of FIES to cause the eviction of employed, rent-paying citizens simply because their mission is to minister to people farther down the housing stock food chain. It’s particularly egregious since FIES routinely receives government subsidies to pursue its mission. It must be galling for a taxpayer to find himself on the receiving end of an eviction notice due to the efforts of a taxpayer subsidized organization.
We hope that the good folks at FIES can reach an accommodation with the current tenants to let them stay on until they can relocate, and/or provide monetary relocation assistance. That’s only fair. It would be a painful irony indeed if any of these people ended up as FIES clients in the future.
Finally, the issue of the FIES compound itself needs to be addressed. Is it appropriate for this facility to continue to expand at this location? Is it wise to aggregate this sort of transitional use in a single neighborhood? Continued expansion seems likely to hasten even more growth in the future. What are the permit requirements, if any, for this proposed use, and what does the City have to say about the dislocation of the existing tenants.
With all of the collaborative activities going on in Fullerton, maybe somebody can collaborate on some help for the residents at 504 W. Amerige Ave.
We received an e-mail a while back from a concerned Friend with a story to tell. In the interest of public information and dialogue we reprint it, below. Take it for what you think it’s worth. Comments on this event are more than welcome:
Sunday night, August 1st 2009, a motor crash involving two trucks occurred on West Union Street. The drivers of these vehicles were apparently racing while under the influence of alcohol. This seems to be less surprising in Fullerton these days, which is not a good thing for those who care about the direction of this city. If you are familiar with this street then you know that most residents park on both sides of the street, and there is no room for reckless driving.
The damage: One flipped truck, one totaled parked car, and consequentially, local residents that are now more concerned than the day before. It was reported that one of the drivers is actually an employee of the bar/restaurant Heroes, located in Downtown Fullerton. Although DUIs are not surprising in this city, the fact that this particular case involves an employee of a popular restaurant, turned popular bar by night, does. On a personal level, I despise Heroes for hiring bar tenders that treat customers with less or the same respect as manure, but that’s a whole other story.
Shouldn’t Heroes be teaching their very own employees about the dangers of drunk driving? Shouldn’t they be emphasizing, “drinking responsibly” not only to the public, but to their very own, as well? I’m not letting drunk drivers in Fullerton, or anywhere for that matter, get off easily, and Heroes shouldn’t either. It’s apparent to me that this establishment needs to have a group meeting about role modeling, employee representation, and accountability… and soon.
It must have been pretty hard for Pam to try to convince her supporters how much she “respected” them – right before she went ahead and stuck it to ’em. Keller’s campaign promise of 2006 was to have planning be “driven” by public input, blah, blah, blah etc., but you get the feeling watching this clip that she had already long since made up her mind to go with the dee-veloper, and was just throwing some verbal crusts for her loyal subjects to gnaw on.
Pam’s comments were well-received by the Chamber lackeys and downtown Redevelopment toadies in the audience, but those who opposed the monster project and had voted for Keller’s promises to represent them rather than development interests, must surely felt just a wee bit, um, betrayed.
The “I’m so torn” plaint, the goofy half-grins, the eye lash battings, (all part of the “I’m just a silly girl” routine), are a pretty annoying shtick. But Pam had better be careful with the coquette act because some lonely swains like Dick Jones seem to get off on it. Check out the hand kiss at the end of the clip and Pam’s apparent revulsion – and then her flippant threat to take back her vote. Enjoy:
Police Captain Greg Mayes is calling for the Planning Commission to prohibit the serving of bottled liquor at local speakeasies. Unfortunately for responsible bars like the Continental Room, this new rule against “bottle service” will eliminate high-end customers from local bars, making plenty of room for the get-drunk-for-cheap crowd that Fullerton cops love to hate.
Continental owner Sean Francis made a strong case to the Planning Commission for allowing him to continue serving $200 bottles of alcohol to the look-at-me crowd. Although he probably could have drawn enough favor from the commission to pull off a coveted exemption from the rules, Mr. Francis took the high road and continues to push for a policy that would allow other bars to restore bottle service too.
It’s been a long time since Prohibition was repealed, and it still seems silly to attempt to force it upon careful bar owners and responsible patrons. This new policy is a misguided attempt to curb obnoxious activity that is actually perpetrated by the low budget crowd who would never pay for bottle service, but will now fill our bars even more.
Fighting, public urination and drunk driving are already illegal. Why can’t the police crack down on activity that directly harms others, rather than creating more laws that only inhibit law-abiding customers?
Fullerton’s drunks will always find a way to get wasted with or without bottle service. The Planning Commission should not penalize responsible citizens and business owners for crimes they did not commit.