DOCUMENTING THE PORT OF LONG BEACH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING:
A WORK OF ART ON THE WATER
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Department of History
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
History
(Public History)
by
Aubrie Morlet
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Aubrie Morlet
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
DOCUMENTING THE PORT OF LONG BEACH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING:
A WORK OF ART ON THE WATER
A Project
by
Aubrie Morlet
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lee Simpson, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Patrick Ettinger, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Aubrie Morlet
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
__________________________, Department Chair
Aaron Cohen, Ph.D.
Department of History
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
DOCUMENTING THE PORT OF LONG BEACH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING:
A WORK OF ART ON THE WATER
by
Aubrie Morlet
The purpose of this project is to discuss the process for performing the
documentation of the Port of Long Beach Administration Building as a form of
mitigation for the future replacement of the building. The completed documentation
found in the appendices of this thesis project follows the Historic American Building
Survey (HABS) Standards and Guidelines and includes a full set of drawings, large
format photographs, historical photographs, and written history. The Administration
Building located at the Port of Long Beach (POLB) is identified as eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion C for its significant
International Style architecture and its modernist mural decoration. Further research
revealed that one of the project architects, Warren A. Dedrick, appears to be a significant
architect for his work within the City of Long Beach.
The Port of Long Beach Records Center provided construction and maintenance
records for the building, historical photographs, original building plans, and Port annual
v
reports utilized to track the uses of the building over its fifty-year history. Additional
resources consulted during the research and writing of this report include books on the
history of the POLB and the City of Long Beach, newspaper articles, technical
documents, and manuals for recording historic resources. Photographer Steven Schafer of
Schafer Studio of Ventura, California took and processed the photographs and large
format negatives needed to complete the project. Copies of the report with original
photographs and negatives are on file at the Port of Long Beach Records Center.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Lee Simpson, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank the staff of the Port of Long Beach Records Center for assisting
me in my research and the Port’s Environmental Branch staff for allowing me the use of
this document for my thesis project.
To my colleagues at Applied EarthWorks, their continual support pushed me
toward completion. Special thanks to Susan Rapp for always making me look good and
to Colleen Hamilton for her guidance throughout the POLB HABS project.
Finally yet importantly, I want to thank my family. My husband and children
endured many weekends of homework and my absence on weeknights to attend classes.
Their sacrifice and understanding is greatly appreciated. Thanks to my sister for
providing a constant source of competition and to my parents for their encouragement.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 7
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 13
HABS/HAER Guidelines................................................................................ 13
Archival Research ........................................................................................... 15
Field Survey .................................................................................................... 17
Photographic Documentation.......................................................................... 18
4. HISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 21
Discovery and Early Trade ............................................................................. 21
Development on the San Pedro Bay ............................................................... 22
Long Beach Beginnings .................................................................................. 25
Reaping the Tourism Rewards ........................................................................ 27
Founding of the Port ....................................................................................... 29
The Discovery of Oil ...................................................................................... 31
The Port Expansion Program and New Administration Building .................. 34
Long Beach Transitions .................................................................................. 36
5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A. Port of Long Beach Administration Building: Photographic,
Architectural, & Historical Documentation ........................................ 44
Appendix B. Port of Long Beach Administration Building: Large Format .................
Photographic Documentation............................................................ 112
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 138
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Key Plan of the Harbor, New Administration Building Sheet A1 ........................... 34
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 2006, CH2M Hill, a global engineer-procure-construct company, evaluated the
Administration Building located at the Port of Long Beach (POLB) as part of the Port of
Long Beach Cultural Resources Inventory for the Middle Harbor. Although they found
that the building was not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) due
to a lack of available information on the building’s architects, the building constructed in
1960 was identified as eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR) under Criterion C for its significant International Style architecture and its
modernist mural decoration. 1 In 2008, potential impacts to the building were considered
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the Administration Building
and Maintenance Facility Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) proposed
demolition of the building. In an effort to reduce the impact of the loss, the Port of Long
Beach Planning Department stipulated that “an architectural historian shall record the
existing Port of Long Beach Administration Building to the standards of either the
Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER).”2
The documentation project located in the appendices of this thesis project was
sponsored by the Port of Long Beach (POLB) and managed by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC). While working for Applied EarthWorks, Inc., as a
1
CH2M Hill, Port of Long Beach Cultural Resources Inventory for the Middle Harbor Memorandum (New
Orleans, LA: Port of Long Beach, 2006), 10.
2
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), “Administration Building and Maintenance
Facility Project,” Final Environmental Impact Report (Los Angeles, CA: Port of Long Beach, 2008), 3.105.
2
Staff Architectural Historian, the author of this thesis project prepared the Port of Long
Beach Administration Building HABS documentation in 2009. Applied EarthWorks
Senior Architectural Historian and Project Manager Ms. M. Colleen Hamilton provided
oversight for the author, communicated with the POLB and SAIC staff, and worked with
Schafer Studio on the photographic documentation. In addition, Hamilton authored the
alterations section in Part I of the Historical Information and the salvage recommendation
section located in Attachment B of the HABS document. Applied EarthWorks Production
Manager Susan Rapp reviewed and edited the report for technical quality. Based on the
approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Administration Building
and Maintenance Facility Project, the three-volume HABS documentation meets the
CEQA requirements for the demolition of the cultural resource.
In 2006, CH2M Hill prepared the Port of Long Beach Cultural Resources
Inventory, Middle Harbor memorandum to identify cultural resources within the Middle
Harbor Area and to evaluate the Port Administration Building for eligibility to the NRHP
and the CRHR. Architectural Historians Catherine Barrier and Elizabeth Calvit
performed the survey and evaluation. The inventory memorandum states,
The Port Administration Building is a good, intact example of the high modernist
style, especially in its use of juxtaposed curvilinear forms and boldly colored
sheathing. It therefore appears eligible for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources under Criterion C. The mural in front of the building is a
good example of modernist mural decoration, and the artist, although apparently
relatively unheralded appears to have been more than competent.3
The memorandum was prepared in support of a Cultural Resource Inventory and
Management Plan for the entire Port of Long Beach. As such, the evaluation did not
3
CH2M Hill, 10.
3
evaluate impacts to resources but only provided identification for future planning
documents.
In 2008, the Port of Long Beach proposed to construct a new Administration
Building and Maintenance Facility. The Project was “designed as a campus-like setting
that consolidates the Port’s administration and maintenance functions at a single campus,
along with public open space amenities.”4 After the completion of the new facility, the
current Administration Building would be demolished. As the current Administration
Building is eligible for listing on the CRHR and is therefore considered a cultural
resource for the purposes of CEQA, an environmental impact report (EIR) was required
to assess the impacts of the project. The POLB contracted with SAIC to prepare the EIR
for the Administration Building and Maintenance Facility Project.
The EIR for the proposed project was issued in November 2008. The document
considered the impacts to the Administration Building based on the project alternatives
within the Cultural Resources section. Under Alternative 1, the construction of the new
facility as proposed, the Administration Building would be demolished following
completion of the new facility. Demolition of a cultural resource is considered a
significant impact under CEQA. Mitigation is proposed to reduce the level of impact
although it cannot reduce the level to less than significant.
Under Alternative 2, the current administration building would undergo seismic
retrofitting and a new annex of similar size would be added to the building. The proposed
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), “Administration Building and Maintenance
Facility Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,” Final Environmental Impact Report and
Application Summary Report (Los Angeles, CA, 2008), MMRP-1.
4
4
alterations would significantly reduce the integrity of the Administration Building to a
level that it would no longer be able to convey its significance. As a result, the building
would no longer be eligible for listing on the CRHR. Alternative 2 would result in a
significant impact to the Administration Building under CEQA. Mitigation is proposed to
reduce the level of impact although it cannot reduce the level to less than significant.
Alternative 3, the no-build alternative, would not result in any significant impacts
to the Administration Building but would not meet the long term needs of the POLB. As
both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in significant impacts to the
Administration Building, SAIC prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the project to address the identified significant impacts to air quality, ground
transportation, noise, and cultural resources (SAIC 2008).
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contains two cultural resource
mitigation measures. The first measure, which applies to both project alternatives, states
“An architectural historian shall record the existing POLB Administration Building to the
standards of either the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) or the Historic
American Engineering Record (HAER)” and that the action must be completed prior to
building demolition.5 The second measure, which applies only to Alternative 2, states
“The Port shall work with an architectural historian to ensure that the proposed building
alteration would conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and/or would alter proposed
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), “Administration Building and Maintenance
Facility Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,” Final Environmental Impact Report and
Application Summary Report (Los Angeles, CA, 2008), MMRP-4.
5
5
renovations in order to conform to these guidelines.”6 This measure must also be
completed prior to any building demolition activities. The focus of this thesis project is
the completion of the first mitigation measure.
Pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural
and Engineering Documentation, the level of documentation should reflect the
significance of the building.7 Four documentation levels are available differing in effort
from extensive to inventory. A Level I documentation includes a full set of measured
drawings, large-format photographs and negatives of the interior and exterior of the
resource in its current condition, historic views, and a written history with a full, itemized
physical description of the resource. A Level II documentation only differs from Level I
in that copies or photographs of select existing drawings, where available, are permitted
instead of requiring a full set of measured drawings. A Level III documentation includes
a sketch plan of the resource, large-format photographs and negatives of the exterior and
interior, and an architectural data form. This level does not include any measured
drawings, historic views, or a lengthy written history and physical description. A Level
IV documentation only includes an inventory card with single photograph. Most often
this level is used to identify resources for further documentation efforts.
Based on the initial evaluation and additional research performed for the
documentation effort, the fullest documentation Level I was selected for the project. To
meet the rigor of this documentation level the following tasks were undertaken:
6
Ibid.
National Parks Service, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER Standards (Washington D.C.: NPS, 1990), 4.
7
6
1. Review of literature to establish the formatting and content requirements to meet
the standard requirements for a Level I HABS documentation;
2. Archival research and preparation of a detailed history of the building and its
association with the Port of Long Beach as well as a the history of the architects
and their potential significance;
3. Field survey of the building and duplication of measured drawings depicting a
typical floor plan, exterior elevation of the building, and landscape features; and
4. Production of professional-quality, large-format photographs depicting significant
features of the building, documenting the mural, and illustrating significant
elements of the interior and exterior.
Additional tasks performed for the documentation exceeded the HABS standards and
included the identification of historically significant elements of the building worth
salvaging and recommendations to utilize such elements in future construction or
donation of these elements to local historical societies or museums.
7
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The need for historic preservation was recognized long before our government
took an active role. The notable saving of Independence Hall and George Washington’s
Mount Vernon illustrate the grassroots, patriotic foundation of American preservation
activities in the 19th century. This period primarily preserved resources associated with
great men and important national events. By the end of the 19th century, the federal
government established programs to assist in the preservation of historic sites and natural
resources by designation of National Monuments and National Parks.8 Since this time,
government agencies have changed the way in which decisions are made to protect our
nation’s past. States such as California created additional legislative policies to extend
historic resource protections into cities and counties.
The passing of the Antiquities Act of 1906 granted the President the ability to
designate “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of
historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the
Government of the United States to be national monuments” and assigned the Office of
the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) to administer designated monuments.9 Norman Tyler
explains in Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice
that the passing of the act “prompted the surveying and identification of historic sites
8
Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice (New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000), 33-35.
9
American Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433.
8
throughout the country.”10 Based on the language of the act, these activities appear to
have been restricted to sites located on federal lands but the act also allowed the SOI to
accept donations of land from private citizens possessing potential monuments. As the
list of designated monuments and parks grew and visitation increased, so did the need for
regular supervision of the sites. The creation of the National Park Service (NPS) in 1916,
under the SOI, provided the organizational foundation needed to improve the oversight
and protection of designated national monuments and parks. Privately funded
preservation continued during the 1920s most recognizably through large projects such as
the reconstruction of Williamsburg, Virginia and the creation of Greenfield Village,
Michigan. While these projects represent an important, well publicized period of
American preservation history, both also create a false sense of history with reconstructed
buildings and buildings relocated from their original context.
In 1933, the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) program was initiated,
funded by the New Deal, to put unemployed architects, draftsmen, and photographers to
work. The program, although not listed by name, is included in the Historic Sites Act of
1935 in Section 2(a) where it states that the Secretary of the Interior shall “secure, collate,
and preserve drawings, plans, photographs, and other data of historic and archaeologic
sites, buildings, and objects.”11 The Historic Sites Act permanently establishes the
program as a part of the National Park Service. The identification and documentation of
threatened historic buildings through the HABS program saved much of our nation’s
10
Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice (New
York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000), 36.
11
Historic Sites Act of 1935, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 461-467.
9
architectural heritage lost to the economic growth of the post-World War II era.
Documentation efforts slowed during the 1940s due to funds diverted to wartime efforts
but resumed in 1957 when federal funding for the program returned.
The HABS program gained significant recognition as a tool for mitigation
following passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which required
government agencies to minimize or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties prior
to commencement of a federally funded project. As a result of the increased
documentation of historic resources, new programs were needed to better represent the
types of resources undergoing documentation. Guidelines for the recordation of
engineered structures and landscapes were added to the program with the creation of the
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) in 1969 and the Historic American
Landscapes Survey (HALS) in 2000. 12 While administered by the National Park Service,
all program documentation is placed for preservation in the Library of Congress with
secondary copies placed in local archival repositories for greater public access.
Even though private preservation organizations continued their efforts to preserve
local historical resources, many significant properties continued to be demolished at the
hand of the federal government during the 1950s and 1960s, particularly for projects
related to transportation systems and urban renewal. The National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (NHPA) is the legislative response to the continued loss of historic
resources. NHPA created the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Parks Service, “Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)” and “Historic American
Landscapes Survey (HALS),” (Washington D.C: NPS, 2013).
12
10
(ACHP), and several programs to fund preservation projects.13 Most importantly, NHPA
“set up the system of checks and balances for evaluating sites, buildings, objects,
districts, and structure which should be taken into account in the planning process.”14
Specifically, Section 106 of the NHPA requires any federally funded undertaking
(project) to “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building,
structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register”
and allow the ACHP the opportunity to comment on those projects.15 The ACHP works
with the project appropriate SHPO to coordinate and oversee the implementation of
mitigation meant to reduce the effects of the project.
The process necessary to comply with NHPA and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the federal environmental law passed in 1969, requires the
identification and mitigation of adverse effects to the environment including historic
resources. Thomas King’s essay “Process vs. Preservation: A False Dichotomy” in
Thinking about Cultural Resource Management: Essays from the Edge considers whether
cultural resource managers believe in preservation or merely the process. King explains
that
we are seldom confronted in CRM with absolute conflicts between preservation
of great old things and their unmitigated destruction by evildoers who don’t
appreciate their value. Most often we deal with conflicts over properties that some
people think are pretty important while others do not, whose preservation
13
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended through 1992, 16 USC 470.
William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America, 3rd ed.
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006), 51.
15
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended through 1992, 16 USC 470.
14
11
conflicts with projects that some people at least honestly think are necessary and
in the public interest, and whose loss can to some extent at least be mitigated.16
King further explains that without the process, identification and therefore preservation is
most often not even considered. Process serves as the safety net to avoid the mass
destruction of properties that might not otherwise be given the opportunity for
identification. Therefore it is not a matter of preservation versus process but the belief
that following the process can lead to the preservation of our national resources.
NHPA compliance is only required for projects that receive federal funding or
permitting nexus. Privately funded development projects are not required under NHPA to
consider the environmental effects of their projects. To extend environmental protections
to the local level, the California legislature passed the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in 1970. The purpose of CEQA is
that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private
individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the
quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major
consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a
decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.17
CEQA compliance is triggered by the need to obtain a permit from a government agency.
Based on the location of the project, cities and/or counties may require privately funded
projects to consider the effects to the environment before a project will be granted a local
demolition or construction permit. To comply, CEQA directs the preparation of an
environmental impact report (EIR) to identify significant effects to the environment,
propose project alternatives, and recommend mitigation measures to lessen the effects of
16
Thomas F. King, Thinking About Cultural Resource Management: Essays From The Edge (Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002), 31.
17
Association of Environmental Professionals, 2012 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines Handbook (Palm
Desert, CA: AEP, 2012), 1.
12
the project and each proposed alternative.18 In addition to CEQA, many cities and
counties also have cultural resources ordinances that require the project proponent to
evaluate potential historical resources for eligibility under local criteria. Properties
eligible under local ordinances are also considered historical resources under CEQA and
therefore are subject to CEQA compliance.
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Port of Long Beach Administration Building was
previously determined eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources and
therefore is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. As the demolition of the
historical resource would result in a significant impact to the environment, a project EIR
was prepared to propose alternatives and recommend mitigation to lessen the adverse
effects. The Port of Long Beach agreed to prepare the HABS Level I documentation of
the building in anticipation of its eventual replacement. As of 2013, the Port of Long
Beach Administration Building is still in use.
18
Association of Environmental Professionals, 2012 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines Handbook (Palm
Desert, CA: AEP, 2012), 2.
13
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Four basic tasks were needed to complete the documentation of the Port of Long
Beach Administration Building. First, instructional written resources were identified to
aid in the writing of the HABS document. Second, archival research was performed to
obtain building-specific information on the history of the Administration Building and on
the development of the Port of Long Beach. Additional archival research was collected to
identify the significance and role of the Administration Building architects. Then a field
survey of the Administration Building was conducted to describe and document its
various features. This included the duplication of the Administration Building measured
plans for use in the preparation of the full physical description of the building. Lastly,
large-format photographs were taken to preserve the significance of the building. Each of
these steps is described in greater detail below.
HABS/HAER Guidelines
The National Parks Service presents detailed documentation and formatting
requirements in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER Standards. The complete
document was retrieved from the National Parks Service Heritage Documentation
Programs website. The four HABS/HAER Standards are:
1. Content: Documentation shall adequately explicate and illustrate what is
significant or valuable about the historic building, site, structure or object being
documented.
14
2. Quality: Documentation shall be prepared accurately from reliable sources with
limitations clearly stated to permit independent verification of information.
3. Materials: Documentation shall be prepared on materials that are readily
reproducible for ease of access; durable for long storage; and in standard sizes for
ease of handling.
4. Presentation: Documentation shall be clearly and concisely produced.19
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER Standards defines the criteria for each
documentation level under each standard. The Standard 1 Content criterion describes the
four documentation levels previously discussed in Chapter 2 of this project. The Standard
2 Quality criterion describes the types of resources acceptable for use in the development
of the written history; measured drawings accuracy; and property depiction guidance for
large format photography. The Standard 3 Materials criterion outlines the production
required for preparing the documentation package such as ink, paper, document sizes,
and large format photograph prints and negatives. The Standard 4 Presentation criterion
describes lettering for the measured drawings, duplicate photographs with a scale, and
that accepted rules of grammar must be used for the written history and resource
description. In addition to the standards, the HABS/HAER Guidelines: HABS Historical
Reports guides the writer section by section though the outline format.20 This last
document was used considerably during the writing of the HABS document.
The Standards document includes a section on recommended sources. Several of
these publications were acquired for additional guidance on the project. In addition to
National Parks Service, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER Standards (Washington D.C.: NPS, 1990), 1.
20
National Parks Service, HABS/HAER Guidelines: HABS Historical Reports (Washington D.C.: NPS,
2000), 3.
19
15
reviewing accepted HABS documents available on the Library of Congress website, a
book edited by John A. Burns, Recording Historic Structures, 2nd edition was especially
helpful for its section on measured drawings.21 Burns provides many examples of
finished drawings with headers making it much easier to understand what information
was needed on the duplicate drawings. Two books on style and terms were utilized
during the written data sections. For guidance on Chicago Style, Kate L. Turabian’s A
Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations was utilized.22 To
ensure that the architectural descriptions used the desired terminology, a book edited by
Cyril M. Harris Historic Architecture Sourcebook (New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1977) was used as recommended by the guidelines.23 Lastly, a four page
guideline located in the HABS/HAER Guidelines: HABS Historical Reports specifies
preferred grammar, punctuation, and exceptions to the Chicago style rules.
Archival Research
Archival research is necessary to prepare the historical context for the written
history section of the documentation and to locate as much detailed information regarding
the history of the building itself. The historical context focuses on exploring the role the
building played in the local community, management of the port, and in international
trade as well as the general history of the Port of Long Beach. The primary source of
information on the Port of Long Beach Administration Building was found in the Record
21
John A. Burns, ed., Recording Historic Structures 2nd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2004), 88.
22
Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations 7th ed. (Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2007).
23
Cyril M. Harris, ed., Historic Architecture Sourcebook (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1977).
16
Center housed within the Administration Building. The Harbor Department maintains a
full-time archival staff and the collections are well organized. The Port of Long Beach
Records Center provided access to the construction and maintenance records for the
building which includes Harbor Commission Minutes discussing the architectural design
submissions and the architect selection process, mural design contest and selection, bid
specifications, construction correspondence, and information on the project’s
subcontractors. The Records Center also provided digital and full size printed copies of
the building’s architectural “as-builts” with post-construction alterations noted on the
plan sheets. Information regarding the general history of the Port of Long Beach was
obtained in part from the Harbor Highlights Quarterly Magazine that was written by Port
staff from 1955 to 1962.
The Record Center maintains an extensive collection of historical photographs of
the port. The original 8" x 10" photographs are currently stored in plastic sleeves inside
binders separated by category. These binders are stored on metal shelves located along
the south wall of the Records Center. The smaller snapshot-sized photographs are glued
to large sheets of paper inside binders that are separated by time period and are located in
a single shelving unit along the west wall. A thorough review of all the available
historical photographs in the records center allowed for the selection and use of the most
informative images that illustrate the changes at the Port from the time of the
Administration Building’s design and construction to the present. Many photographs
record local community and international events that took place at the Administration
Building. Alterations to the interior of the Administration Building were identified
17
through photographs of Harbor Commission Meetings, office parties, and generic
photographs of employees working that were used in port publications.
Other information sources examined include the Gladding, McBean Collection at
the California History Section, California State Library; Main Branch of the Long Beach
Public Library; the Archives and Special Collections at the University Library, California
State University, Long Beach; the Historical Society of Long Beach; Paul Souza
Collection; American Institute of Architects Long Beach/South Bay Chapter; and Æ’s
own in-house library. Research documents were also obtained from Internet sources such
as Newspaper Archive (www.newspaperarchive.com), which provided historic copies of
the Long Beach Independent Press Telegram and from the Port of Long Beach
(www.polb.com), which provided a limited history of the Port’s operations.
Field Survey
An architectural field survey of the building was conducted on July 20-21, 2009,
to describe and document its architectural and interior design features. The architectural
“as-built” drawings were studied prior to the survey to identify alterations to the design
features of the building. Historical photographs were used to identify alterations to the
interior design features such as the employee lounge and the exhibit gallery located
outside of the boardroom. During the floor-by-floor survey, notes were taken on the
condition of original character defining features and of any visible alterations.
Photographs of the exterior of the building, its context and setting, and all interior
features were taken for personal use during the writing of the architectural information
section of the documentation package.
18
Multiple visits were made by M. Colleen Hamilton, Senior Architectural
Historian, to identify architectural features that best represent the building’s style and
possess the potential for future use either in another building or in a historical display.
Recommendations for the salvage of such materials and architectural elements are
provided within the documentation package.
Photographic Documentation
The photographic documentation of a significant cultural resource is the most
important part of the documentation effort. Therefore selection of the photographer and
production of the finished photographs and negatives must meet very specific federal
standards established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Detailed information is provided on the
recommended equipment, processing, views required, prints, labeling, and creation of
photograph caption sheets in the HABS/HAER Photographs: Specifications and
Guidelines.24 Bids were solicited from three southern California photographers
advertising the necessary experience. Considerations during the selection process
included the photographer’s familiarity with the building type, local weather challenges,
and previous experience with HABS documentation. Following selection of the
photographer, we began the important process of defining the appropriate views to
capture the building’s significance.
Based on review of the building plans and the field survey, significant character
defining features of the exterior, interior, and landscaping of the Administration Building
24
National Parks Service, HABS/HAER Photographs: Specifications and Guidelines (Washington D.C.:
NPS, 2001).
19
were identified for documentation in addition to contextual setting photographs. Working
with the Port of Long Beach staff, the photographer was able to arrange the use of a lift to
take photographs of the entire building in its landscaped context and access rooftops
across from the Administration Building to capture larger port-wide contextual
photographs. It was also necessary to arrange for windows to be closed and to direct foot
traffic to alternative exits during the photograph session. The professional HABS quality,
large-format photographs were taken by Steven Schafer of Schafer Photo Studios of
Ventura, California on June 23-24 and July 20, 2009. The second session in July
provided the opportunity to retake any views that appeared less than ideal once printed
and to add views that were identified after the first session as significant to the
documentation effort.
Photographic documentation includes not only the taking of the photographs but
the archival production and packaging of the results. Schafer produced three sets of prints
and large-format 4x5 negatives on acid-free archival quality materials as specified in the
HABS/HAER Photographs: Specifications and Guidelines. Schafer also provided interior
and exterior photograph maps to identify the location and directional information for each
view. This information is presented on 8x10 site plans for some of the exterior views and
on 11x17 reproductions of the architectural building plans for the remaining exterior
views and all of the interior views. Corresponding numbers are located on the photograph
caption sheets, photo maps, prints, and large-format negatives. The large-format
negatives and prints were placed in archival quality album sleeves. As of 2014, the Port
20
of Long Beach Administration Building is still in use with no immediate plans for
demolition.
21
Chapter 4
HISTORIC CONTEXT
To fully understand the significance of any historic resource, the historic context
must identify the important aspects of history that shaped the development of the
resource. As such, the historic context delineates the specific association with history
through which a resource may have achieved significance. Significance is based on how
well the resource being considered represents one or more of the themes discussed in the
historic context. The development of the San Pedro Bay as a port directly contributed to
the successful economic growth of several cities in southern California including the city
and port of Long Beach. The use of the San Pedro Bay as a port begins with its discovery
and use by the Spanish.
Discovery and Early Trade
Although Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo first discovered San Pedro Bay on October 8,
1542, it would be the landing of 1734 by Cabrera Buena that would give the bay its
current name.25 Following a positive report from Buena, Spanish leaders eventually
determined that development of Alta California was in their best interest. With Gaspar de
Portolá leading the way, Father Junipero Serra established several missions during the
exploration period including Mission San Diego de Alcala in 1769, Mission San Gabriel
in 1771, and Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1776. These missions required a location
from which they could receive goods from Spanish ships to supplement mission-
25
Charles F. Queenan, Long Beach and Los Angles: A Tale of Two Ports (Northridge, CA: Windsor
Publications, Inc., 1986), 9-10.
22
produced goods, and San Pedro Bay provided a safe harbor. Both the mission at San
Gabriel and San Juan Capistrano utilized San Pedro Bay for trading with Spain.26
In 1784 Manuel Perez Nieto, a veteran of the Portolá expedition, was granted a
300,000-acre section of land that includes what is now the City and Port of Long Beach.
Following the death of Nieto in 1804, his son Juan José subdivided the land into five
ranchos. In 1843 American John Temple purchased Rancho Los Cerritos with several
miles of its border along San Pedro Bay. Five years later Temple, together with his
partner Juan Alexander, purchased additional waterfront property from the Rancho Los
Palos Verdes located on the west portion of the bay. This was the location of Alexander’s
first general store and shipping company. Goods were moved between the pueblo and the
bay by cart and oxen, a slow and dangerous task due to the rough terrain and bandits
along the route. As the transportation of passengers increased, Diego Sepulveda, an
alcalde of the Pueblo of Los Angeles, saw an opportunity and created the first stagecoach
line. Sepulveda’s landing included the construction of the first wharf, storehouse, and
passenger house on San Pedro Bay around 1850.27
Development on the San Pedro Bay
Following the annexation of California in 1848, the population in the Los Angeles
area exploded. One new arrival saw great potential in the San Pedro Bay region. Phineas
Banning was an industrious man and his hard work paid off when he purchased Temple’s
share of his shipping company. Banning immediately set out to enlarge the existing
business. After a storm destroyed the wharf in 1857, Banning decided to relocate the
26
27
Queenan, 13.
Queenan, 23.
23
business to another area that he had previously purchased on the bay. This portion of the
San Pedro Bay was mostly marsh, but Banning was determined to turn the property into
productive land. He proceeded to drain the area and develop the land, naming the site
after his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware. Banning constructed flat-bottomed barges
and shallow-draft steamers to overcome the shallow water that lay at his wharf.
Following the construction of Banning’s Landing, Banning constructed several
warehouses for the storage of trade goods and a large lumber yard to provide materials
for the growing number of businesses and residents moving into the area.28 Banning’s
ingenuity and improvements made Wilmington the busiest wharf on San Pedro Bay.29
Fort Drum, created in 1861 in support of the Union Army, expedited the
development of Wilmington and the success of Banning and his partner. When Army
Captain Phil Sheridan arrived in Wilmington, Banning donated 60 acres in support of a
military installation. In return, the military awarded Banning the contract to construct the
buildings for the Fort. In addition, all trade associated with the fort traveled through
Banning’s Landing. 30 The decommissioning of Fort Drum in 1866 resulted in a
significant loss of income generated from soldiers and visitors patronizing saloons,
barbers, hotels, and general mercantile stores. As a result, settlement of the town lagged
behind that of neighboring communities. Nonetheless, during this time a telegraph office,
28
Walter Edwin Holstein, A History of Wilmington from the Spanish Period to 1931 (Privately published
1935), 4.
29
Queenan, 26.
30
Queenan, 29.
24
post office, and newspaper were established in Wilmington, connecting the people and
the wharf to nation.31
Elected State Senator in 1865, Banning began promoting improvements for both
Southern California and Wilmington in the legislature ultimately gaining approval for the
construction of the Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad (LA&SP). With the financial
assistance of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County, the Common Council of
the City of Los Angeles, and private investor H. B. Tichenor, Banning’s construction
company completed the 21-mile line from Los Angeles to Wilmington’s wharf in 1869.32
Three years later, the Southern Pacific Railroad purchased the line connecting it to their
network of statewide lines and, more importantly, to the transcontinental railroad. This
particular rail line was vital to the development of local communities through the import
of lumber from the north. For several decades, this commodity would dominate the
harbor’s commerce feeding the nation’s need for building materials and simultaneously
funding the further development of the harbor.33
In 1880, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company extended the railroad line west
into the harbor area of the town of San Pedro. Soon after, the railroad company
constructed wharves and warehouses at its new berths on the main channel of the
harbor.34 Due to the availability of the deeper harbor and closer access to the railroad, an
increasing number of ships began to dock at San Pedro instead of traveling farther into
the main channel to reach Wilmington. The decline in cargo business at the Wilmington
31
Holstein, 4, 26, 32.
“Press Dispatches,” Sacramento Daily Union, October 26, 1869, 2.
33
“Western Trend of Industry,” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1923, 4.
34
Holstein, 12.
32
25
port compelled Banning to relocate his transportation company to San Pedro Harbor in
1882. The relocation of Banning left a noticeable void in the east basin, one that was
readily picked up by the developers of the city of Long Beach.
Long Beach Beginnings
In 1882, the American Colony Land, Water and Town Association, organized by
William Willmore, bought a land option of 4,000 acres from Rancho Los Cerritos owner
Jotham Bixby Company. Located three miles west of Wilmington, the new subdivision
encompassed two distinct areas: the town site of Willmore City adjacent to the beach and
the American Colony farming area to the north of the city. The new town promised
improved roads, water lines, and a view of the ocean unobstructed by commercial
development. In fact, the subdivision was laid out so that none of the town lots faced
north, only south toward the ocean or west and east toward the street. Willmore wanted a
temperance town and included a clause prohibiting the sale of intoxicants in each land
deed.35 Unhappily for Willmore, lot sales lagged and improvements were difficult to
install with the lack of cash from land sales. After two years, Willmore was unable to
make the installment payments to Bixby and the land reverted back to its previous owner.
In 1884, a second group of investors, later named the Long Beach Land and
Water Company, decided to give Willmore City another try. This time the land option
also included 800-acres of marsh lands between the river and the town site. Likely in an
effort to distinguish themselves from the previous investor, the town was renamed Long
Beach in recognition of the town’s 6-mile stretch of beach. The Long Beach Land and
35
Loretta Berner, A Step Back In Time (Long Beach, CA: Historical Society of Long Beach, 1990), 5.
26
Water Company immediately invested in improvements such as the water system and
streets in addition to constructing the 130-room Long Beach Hotel with public bath house
and the Magnolia Avenue Pier.36 The Long Beach Land and Water Company established
planning rules to promote beauty and pleasure within the city. Planning rules addressed
set-backs for construction, a property owners responsibility to install a sidewalk with a
Palm tree and Eucalyptus tree in the front yard, the amount of free water allowed for
landscape improvements, and a requirement that owners keep all stock on the their
property and if the stock escaped and caused damage to any landscape, the owner must
promptly pay to repair the damage. 37 Additional rules addressed visitors as well as
residents such as camping water rates and appropriate swimsuit attire. Due to the
increasing popularity of Long Beach, the Long Beach Hotel expanded each winter to
accommodate more guests until a fire destroyed the building in November 1888.
Long Beach continued to attract new residents and businesses with the population
reaching 800 in 1888.38 Unhappy with the services provided by the county, the residents
of Long Beach voted to incorporate that same year, giving the citizens’ greater control
over the future development of the city. Eric Monkkonen asserts in America Becomes
Urban that:
Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, cities chose to intervene aggressively in
the local economic setting, intentionally creating what they hoped would be ideal
36
Richard DeAtley, Long Beach: The Golden Shore, A History of the City and the Port (Houston, TX:
Pioneer Publications, Inc., 1988), 35.
37
Tim Grobaty, Long Beach Chronicles: From Pioneers to the 1933 Earthquake (Charleston, SC: The
History Press, 2012), 86.
38
Long Beach, Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, February 1888.
27
environments for economic growth. By these actions individual villages, towns,
and cities attempted to amplify their existing locational or economic advantages.39
Long Beach appears to have taken this direction in promoting their city for its southern
California coastal attributes, encouraging new businesses and tourism. In 1892, the city
approved a bond measure to construct the first municipal pier in California.40 The
completion of the Pine Avenue Pier in May 1893 was celebrated with a well-attended
dedication ceremony and barbeque. Just four years later voters approved a bond to
construct a Pavilion next to the Pine Avenue Pier for dancing and other social events.
Unfortunately, the city continued to struggle with liquor issues. Many remained
committed to keeping the town dry while others touted the income that could be had from
allowing saloons in the city. As a result, the city voted for disincorporation in 1896. As
city services quickly began to break down, the town voted to re-incorporate the next year.
Reaping the Tourism Rewards
From 1900 to 1920, the U.S. Census records Long Beach as the fastest growing
city in the nation. The population expanded from 2,252 in 1900 to 17,809 in 1910. By
1920, the population of Long Beach reached 55,593. Although the development of the
Port of Long Beach got underway during the first two decades of the century, it was the
promotion of tourism that was responsible for rapid population growth in Long Beach.
Soon after the city reincorporated plans were put in motion for several municipal
projects including the construction of City Hall with a second floor library, the
construction of Long Beach High School, and the establishment of the Fire Department.
39
Eric H. Monkkonen, America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities & Towns 1780-1980 (Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1988), 4.
40
Berner, 19.
28
Private investors started projects that would make a significant impact on tourism.
Charles Drake moved to Long Beach and upon seeing great potential purchased 40-acres
of land and created the Long Beach Bath House and Amusement Company. Drake
proposed to construct a two-story, salt-water bath house at the west end of the beach. The
Plunge, as it was later called, included 485 dressing rooms, 22 hot water baths, a large
general use pool, and a smaller ladies only pool. The facility even rented swimsuits.
During the same period, Henry Huntington was installing the Pacific Electric Line to
establish a frequent rail service from Los Angeles to Long Beach. The Red Car, as it
would later be known, would arrive in Long Beach every 15 minutes and was projected
to be open for business on July 4, 1902. As a massive amount of people began to arrive
on opening day, Drake opened the bath house even though it was not quite ready. It is
estimated that more than 60,000 people visited Long Beach on that day.41
The city continued its growth as a resort city with the replacement of the old Pine
Avenue Pier with a two-story pier in 1904. The very next year, the city added a threestory auditorium, to replace the old pavilion, adjacent to the pier entrance and a sun
parlor at the end of the pier.42 Small businesses erected stands providing games,
merchandise, and food between the Plunge and the Pine Avenue Pier creating a
boardwalk area referred to as the Pike. This area also included additional development by
the Long Beach Bath House and Amusement Company; the Walk of a Thousand Lights
41
42
DeAtley, 48-49.
Gerrie Schipske, Early Long Beach (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011) 36-37.
29
grew to include a Ferris wheel, several movie theaters, shooting galleries, palmists, and a
roller coaster.43
With access to Los Angeles via the Red Car and the booming tourism business
created in Long Beach, it is not difficult to see why the city experienced such significant
growth during the first two decades of the twentieth century. Carl Abbott describes in
How Cities Won the West that cities are reliant on commercial centers for their economic
growth. For example Abbott states, “The California gold rush turned a town site into a
city by creating a voracious appetite for Oregon wheat and lumber.”44 In the case of Long
Beach, the greater Los Angeles area served as the commercial center which the city relied
on for tourists, material goods such as lumber and food, and reliable transportation. Prior
to the Red Car, the Southern Pacific only traveled to Long Beach twice a day. Long
Beach historians often cite the arrival of the Red Car as the single most important event
in the growth of the city.
Founding of the Port
In 1897, Congress approved the funding to build a breakwater in San Pedro Bay.
During construction of the breakwater, visions of a port on Long Beach surfaced in local
newspapers. Funds appropriated in 1903 to deepen the harbor in Wilmington gained the
interest of investors. Formed for the development of the harbor, the Long Beach Land
and Navigation Company purchased the 800 acres west of Long Beach with the intent of
creating a shipping canal from the Cerritos Slough. In 1906, the Los Angeles Dock and
43
DeAtley 54-55.
Carl Abbott, How Cities Won The West: Four Centuries of Urban Change in Western North America
(Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2008), 61.
44
30
Terminal Company purchased this land at the mouth of the Los Angeles River and
dredged out three channels for dockage. The new channel improvements led the owner of
the Craig Shipbuilding Company to choose Long Beach over San Diego for the
relocation of his shipyard, which brought new enthusiasm to the port project in Long
Beach. In September 1909, the city of Long Beach passed a bond to purchase frontage on
Channel No. 3.45 This purchase and subsequent construction of the municipal wharf made
the city see the benefits of operating a port.
Officially founded on June 24, 1911, with a grant of trust from the State of
California over the tidelands, the Port of Long Beach received its first official cargo on
Pier 1 from the S.S. Iaqua. Within the next year, passenger steamship service was
established and development projects continued to move forward.46 Several large
industries moved into the port during the first five years after opening, including the
Southern California Edison Company’s Long Beach Steam Plant, the Western Hardwood
Lumber Company yards, the Long Beach Salt Company plant, American Potash plant,
and a large fish canning plant. Other plants located nearby include the California Woolen
Manufacture Company, Star Drilling Machine Company, and the California Glass
Insulator Company.47 Each of the new businesses increased ship activity at the new port,
forcing the city to take on additional improvements.
Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Dock and Terminal Company had problems with
sand and silt continuously being deposited from the Los Angeles River into the port
45
DeAtley, 57.
Queenan, 68.
47
Long Beach Sanborn, 1914.
46
31
channels and restricting ship movement. Constant dredging of the channels was
necessary, consuming time and financial resources. As a result, in 1916 the City of Long
Beach took over the dredging projects and acquired the deeds to the channels and nearby
land from the bankrupted Dock and Terminal Company.48 In 1917, the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District was created to construct a silt diversion channel for the
Los Angeles River that diverted floodwater filled with sand and silt into the ocean. Both
of these efforts assisted the port in achieving “deep water” status in 1926.
The Discovery of Oil
With the discovery of oil at Signal Hill in 1921, the city of Long Beach received a
large increase in revenues that would be devoted to harbor improvements. In 1924 a $5
million bond was approved to build a breakwater and other improvements intended to
protect the harbor. Four years later, another bond measure passed to construct additional
piers, wharves, and facilities, including Piers A and B in the outer harbor, and to
reconstruct the older Municipal Wharf. In addition to the pier project, the city built a
municipal rail line that connected to both the Union Pacific Railroad and the Pacific
Electric Railroad, improving the movement of cargo around the port.49 While these
much-needed improvements did result in unprecedented traffic, revenue to the port could
not be sustained. The Great Depression kept the port from realizing this traffic volume
again until 1938.
In 1936, the General Petroleum Corporation discovered oil in the Long Beach
harbor area, north of the Cerritos Channel. This event led to the hiring of the Westgate48
49
Queenan, 79.
“Trials and Tribulations Shaped Port’s Future,” Harbor Highlights Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer 1981), 10.
32
Greenland Oil Company by the Long Beach Harbor Department to explore the harbor for
oil resources. The first oil well, brought in on March 8, 1938, prompted the city to create
a Petroleum Division, which contracted with the Long Beach Oil Development
Company. Some 126 wells were operating within the tidelands in the next five years.
Revenue generated from the oil allowed the port to pursue several important projects,
including the construction of the first transit shed at Pier A, the hydraulic dredging of the
inner harbor creating a nine-block landmass south of Seaside Boulevard that would
become the Terminal Island Naval Base, and construction of a Port of Long Beach
Administration Building at the foot of Pier C in the then-popular Mission Style.50
In 1940, the U.S. Navy took control of 104 acres on the east side of Terminal
Island and constructed “Victory Pier” along the southern end of Pier A (later renamed
Pier F). The Navy had docked ships at the Long Beach Harbor since 1919 but did not
officially open a base until 1942.51 During World War II, all nonmilitary construction
halted, giving the Navy full access to the port. When harbor construction resumed in
1946, the port built its first clear-span transit shed on Pier A. As the 1940s came to a
close, the port completed the expansion of Pier B and the addition of the new Pier C.52 At
the start of 1950, Piers A, B, and C made up the outer harbor and Channels 2 and 3
constituted the inner harbor, but all of this would soon change as the port began a large
expansion program aimed at better competing with the neighboring Port of Los Angeles.
50
Ibid.
Queenan, 94, 113.
52
“Trials and Tribulations Shaped Port’s Future,” Harbor Highlights Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer 1981), 10.
51
33
While the city and harbor reaped the financial benefit of oil extraction, the
grounds surrounding the harbor paid the consequences. In 1945, a United States Coast
and Geodetic Survey reported that the ground had subsided 4.2-feet at the east end of
Terminal Island. Further investigation revealed that other areas along the Long Beach
waterfront had also subsided several feet. Subsidence damaged the Terminal Island
Bridge, the Naval Shipyard, and buildings at the Craig shipyard. In order to combat this
problem, the port began Operation Big Squirt in 1953. Following the successful testing of
injecting saltwater into the areas depleted of oil, re-pressurization efforts intensified in
1958, reaching over 1 million barrels of water injected each day into the voids by 1960.
That same year the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners reported in Harbor
Highlights that subsidence had halted and several areas had now stabilized.53
While efforts to correct the subsidence issue were a priority, the compensation
measures spurred new construction. The port replaced old wooden wharfs with new
reinforced concrete facilities that were elevated to avoid future subsidence. Eight
additional clear-span transit sheds were built, also of reinforced concrete, to create a
fireproof environment attractive to the shipping industry. The expansion program
developed and approved by the Harbor Commission in 1957 proposed the creation of
four new piers off the southern end of Pier A (Figure 4.1). The plan, envisioning a buildout over the next twenty years, would add forty-one berths to the existing thirty.
Following the approval of the new plan, the port began dredging the existing Pier E (as
the site for the new Richfield crude petroleum terminal) and used the fill to partially
53
“President Reports.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter 1960): 1, 5.
34
create the new landmass needed for Piers F and G.54 It was during this build-out phase
that the need for a new administration building was fully realized.
Figure 1 : Key Plan of the Harbor, New Administration Building Sheet A1.
The Port Expansion Program and New Administration Building
The Harbor Commission initially pursued adding on to the existing
Administration Building at 1331 El Embarcadero but soon realized that the existing site
was too unstable. In September 1956, the commission chose Friend and Dedrick to
jointly design a new building. A preliminary design was approved in July 1957 that
included a round reflecting pool in front of a mural that told the history of the harbor. 55
By the time that specifications were issued in February 1958, the pool had been reduced
“Target: 1977,” Harbor Highlights, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Summer 1957): 1-3.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, September 11, 1956 and July 25,
1957, Port of Long Beach Records Center, Long Beach, CA.
54
55
35
to a curved reflecting pool that matched the dimensions of the mural.56 Once the contract
was awarded in March, construction of the new administration building began in June
1958. 57 The street that it faces was renamed Harbor Plaza in August 1959.58
The dedication ceremony for the Port of Long Beach Administration Building
was a celebratory event held on February 23, 1960. The City’s Mayor Raymond C.
Kealer, Harbor Commission President H. E. Ridings Jr., and Chamber of Commerce
President A. L. Code offered dedication speeches. City Councilman Gerald Desmond
presented the California flag on behalf of the Native Sons of the Golden West, and the
Exalted Ruler of Long Beach Elks Lodge Number 888 Edwin Hyka presented the United
States flag, both of which were raised by the Long Beach Sea Scouts of Ship 131. This
was clearly a community affair. Following the formal speeches, the Wedding of the
Waters ceremony was performed by “girls in costume representing 31 different nations”
who poured water into the reflecting pool below the mural. This ceremony “symbolically
united all the ports far and near represented at the occasion in a fellowship of
international friendship.”59 The Long Beach Harbor Commission conducted its first
meeting in the new building that same day.
The construction of Piers F and G begun in 1958 as part of this building phase
was completed one year after the Administration Building (in 1961). This initial
expansion beyond the original outer harbor area changed the map for the Port of Long
Beach; truly it had emerged as the “World’s Most Modern Port.” The old outer harbor,
56
Bid Specification for the Construction of an Administration Building on South Maine Avenue, Pier A, at
Long Beach Middle Harbor (Long Beach: Port of Long Beach Records Center 1958).
57
“Administration Building Started,” Harbor Highlights, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Summer 1958): 12.
58
“New Name for New Street,” Harbor Highlights, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Fall 1959): 23.
59
“New Administration Building Dedicated.” Harbor Highlights, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring 1960): 1-13.
36
consisting of Piers A, B, C, D, and E, became the Middle Harbor and the new Outer
Harbor consisted of Piers F and G. The new transportation mode of “containerization”
reached the port in 1962. Cargo shipped in these large metal containers revolutionized the
port’s operation capacity by increasing available storage space (the containers could be
stacked) and improving cargo movement out of the port (with the ease of loading trucks
and trains). Combined with the opening of Highway 710 in 1958, traffic moved
efficiently in and out of the port.60 This new shipping tool urged the port to begin
construction of the new Pier J and the extension of Pier F in 1962. Completed in 1965,
the new and expanded piers created over 300 acres of much-needed space for container
unloading and storage. Pier J was expanded again in 1971 and 1975 to accommodate a
container and automobile shipping terminal.61
Long Beach Transitions
In 1930, the population in Long Beach reached 142,032, more than doubling its
size during the preceding decade. While the city still pursued tourism with the addition of
the Rainbow Pier, Municipal Auditorium, and municipal airport, city leaders also
engaged in boosterism through the Chamber of Commerce to attract large industrial and
manufacturing businesses primarily for the port. By the end of 1927, the port reported a
significant increase in lumber imports and the beginning of the construction of the Ford
Motor Company Plant that would hire more than 2,000 local employees in 1930.62 In the
summer of 1928, Long Beach Chamber of Commerce hosted the Pacific Southwest
“Port of Long Beach Advertisement Regarding Opening of Highway 710,” Harbor Highlights, Vol. 4,
No. 4 (Fall 1958): no page number.
61
“Trials and Tribulations Shaped Port’s Future,” Harbor Highlights Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer 1981), 11.
62
“Southeast of the City: Long Beach.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles), January 3, 1928, G7.
60
37
Exposition. While intending to present the achievements of the Pacific Southwest, the 39day event also included more than twenty international exhibitors.63 At the close of the
event, the Chamber reported that a total of 1.1 million people visited the exposition.
Following a devastating earthquake in 1933 that substantially demolished much of
downtown, the growth of Long Beach slowed. Due to the discovery of oil on Signal Hill
in 1921, the city was able to rebuild and repair the damage inflicted upon public
infrastructure, schools, and the harbor. Jobs were readily had to repair the estimated $50million dollars in damage.64 Stable businesses such as Ford Motors, Proctor and Gamble,
Van Camp Sea Food, United Fruit Company, and four oil companies allowed the city to
maintain a steady number of jobs during much of the 1930s65.
In 1932, the U.S. Navy chose the Port of Long Beach as the home for its Pacific
Fleet. This early relationship would transition into a 105-acre Naval Base constructed at
the port during World War II. Shipbuilding companies at the port starting filling contracts
for ships and submarines before the United States entered the war. In 1940, Douglas
Aircraft built their factory in Long Beach near the municipal airport. The factory
constructed more than 4,000 C-47’s planes, 999 A-20 Havocs, 1,156 A-26 attack planes,
and 3,000 B-17’s during the war.66 Both Douglas Aircraft and the U.S. Navy continued
on at the port after the end of the war continuing to employ thousands in the Long Beach
area.
63
Grobaty, 112-115.
Grobaty, 155.
65
DeAtley, 77.
66
DeAtley, 90-91.
64
38
Like many cities in the U.S., the post war housing boom in Long Beach led to the
creation of new suburban neighborhoods surrounding the city. Even though the
population grew by almost 100,000 people by 1950, many new homeowners chose to
settle in new communities just outside of the Long Beach. During most of the 1950s, the
city was focused on repairing damage at and around the port incurred by subsidence, the
result of extracting large quantities of oil from underground. At the same time, the
downtown shopping area started to diminish. According to the Downtown Long Beach
Associates, an organization created in 1937 by local merchants, the creation of shopping
malls in suburban neighborhoods led to the significant decline in foot traffic in downtown
and resulted in the closing of many downtown businesses.67 The correlation appears
reasonable as so many families are living in suburban neighborhoods and starting
families. During the baby boom of the 1950s, shoppers want to get what they need as
quickly and conveniently as possible. Unless you lived near downtown, shopping
downtown was not convenient. The situation was further impacted when the Red Car line
discontinued its service in 1961 disconnecting consumers and visitors that only traveled
by public transportation.
The decline in downtown business spread to the tourist attractions resulting in the
closing of the Municipal Auditorium in 1965, the Rainbow Pier and Plunge in 1966 and
the last roller coaster in 1968.68 Many of the amusements at the Pike also closed as a
result of the loss of the major attractions. The city tried to reinvigorate tourism with the
67
Downtown Long Beach Associates, History. Accessed at http://www.downtownlongbeach.org/history,
on February 28, 2014.
68
DeAtley, 108.
39
purchase and rehabilitation of the Queen Mary luxury liner in 1967. As with all big
projects, the rehabilitation process took more money and much more time than the city
anticipated. The Queen Mary opened for business in 1971 featuring 90 shops, 400 hotel
rooms, and an upscale restaurant. In less than five years with no positive revenue, the
venture was facing an uncertain future. In 1980 a private investor leased the Queen Mary
and added the Spruce Goose exhibit next to the ship in 1983.69 Even with the increase in
tourism resulting from the Queen Mary, tourism did not improve at the Pike and it was
demolished in 1979.
During the last half of the 1970s the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency created
a plan to attract “retail, convention, visitor, and recreation business back to the city.”70
The agency successfully encouraged several hotel companies to construct new hotels
downtown next to the new Convention and Entertainment Center located at the site of the
old Rainbow Pier. Two new shopping centers, the Shoreline Village and the Long Beach
Plaza, were completed at the waterfront in 1981 and 1982, respectively. Also completed
in 1982, was a downtown marina for non-commercial anchorage.
As Mike Davis describes in his work City of Quartz, cities in the greater Los
Angeles area have often found a way of reimagining themselves when faced with
economic challenges. Davis states “the cultural history of the 1980s recapitulated the
real-estate/arts nexus of early twentieth-century boosterism, although this time around
with a promotional budget so large that it could afford to buy the international celebrity
architects, painter and designers…capable of giving cultural prestige and a happy ‘Pop’
69
70
DeAtley, 109-110, 120.
DeAtley, 113.
40
veneer to the emergence of the ‘world city’.”71 Early promotional materials for Long
Beach had invited the traveler to enjoy the resort city amusements and beach. When
tourism slowed, the increased activity at the port sustained the city although it too
required constant promotion to maintain current clients and obtain new business. Then in
the 1980s, the Downtown Long Beach Associates, the Long Beach Chamber of
Commerce, and the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency all pursued the same goal to
increase business in Long Beach. Each must create a vision or image that will attract the
traveler, shopper, or convention that they desire. The return to tourism was natural for a
city with a long beach.
71
Mike Davis, City of Quartz (New York, NY: First Vintage Books Edition, 1992), 22.
41
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
The eight-story Port of Long Beach Administration Building built in the
International Style is the jewel of all buildings currently located at the port. Housing
those responsible for the administration of port activities, the size and decoration exudes
the importance of the building’s role. The reflective quality of the terra cotta ceramic
veneer encasing the building and the ribbons of windows creates a sparkling effect
mirroring the movement of the nearby ocean. At the time of construction, the building
was sited in the eastern corner of Pier A with the ocean surrounding all sides except the
west (rear) façade, which faced the port’s busy piers. Landscaping was designed with
minimal height in order not to impede any of the building’s panoramic views.
When first assessed as an historic property in 2006 the Administration Building
was deemed not to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but the
following statement was provided regarding its eligibility for the California Register of
Historical Resources:
The Administration Building is a good, intact example of the modernist style.
Although research has yielded no information that indicates the architects who
designed it were significant in the history of California architecture, this building
is an example of high modernist style, especially in its use of juxtaposed
curvilinear forms and boldly colored sheathing. The mural in front of the building
is a good example of modernist mural decoration and the artist, although
apparently relatively unheralded, appears to have been more than competent.72
Catherine Barrier, “Port of Long Beach Administration Building: Building, Structure, and Object
Record,” Port of Long Beach Cultural Resources Inventory for the Middle Harbor Memorandum (CH2M
Hill, New Orleans, LA: Port of Long Beach, 2006).
72
42
During the course of the current documentation effort, additional information discovered
regarding the architects, mural artists, and port history enhances the argument for the
significance of the building. In addition to its significant architecture, the Administration
Building is emblematic of the expansion period the port underwent following ten years of
stabilization efforts to resolve subsidence issues at the port. The Administration Building
was the first building completed in the expansion program which more than doubled the
berthing space at the port. The expansion program, approved by the Harbor Commission
in 1957, added four new piers and forty-one berths to the port over the next decade.
Together with new wharfs, transit sheds, and infrastructure improvements, the expansion
program brought the aging harbor up to the modern age culminating in a significant
period of capital growth at the Port of Long Beach.
While mitigation can never replace the loss of a cultural resource, a complete
HABS documentation such as the one performed for the Port of Long Beach
Administration Building can preserve the written and visual history of the resource for
scholars, engineers, architects, and interested members of the public. It is important to
understand that not only must the documentation effort be as complete as possible, the
product of the effort must also be filed in public institutions with appropriate storage
facilities to preserve the materials. Prior to the actual demolition of the Port of Long
Beach Administration Building, copies of the HABS documentation will be filed with the
South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton; the
Archives and Special Collections at the University Library, California State University,
Long Beach; the Historical Society of Long Beach; the City of Long Beach Historic
43
Preservation Officer; the California Office of Historic Preservation; and the Port of Long
Beach Authority.
44
APPENDIX A
Port of Long Beach Administration Building:
Photographic, Architectural, & Historical Documentation
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
APPENDIX B
Port of Long Beach Administration Building:
Large Format Photographic Documentation
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Port of Long Beach Records Center
“Administration Building Started.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 4, No. 3 (Summer 1958): 12.
Approved Sub-contractor list dated June 18, 1958. Specification No. 528. Port of Long
Beach Records Center, Long Beach, CA.
Bid Specification for the Construction of an Administration Building on South Maine
Avenue, Pier A, at Long Beach Middle Harbor dated February 3, 1958.
Specification No. 528. Port of Long Beach Records Center, Long Beach, CA.
Building Permit dated January 23, 1958. Specification No. 528. Port of Long Beach
Records Center, Long Beach, CA.
Inspection Record for Administration Building Issued March 12, 1958 and Final
February 19, 1960. Specification No. 528. Port of Long Beach Records Center,
Long Beach, CA.
“International Festival,” Harbor Highlights Vol. 2, No. 2 (Summer 1978), 5.
Memo dated March 6, 1958 from Associated Architects to Harbor Commission.
Specification No. 528. Port of Long Beach Records Center, Long Beach, CA.
Memo dated January 23, 1959 from City of Long Beach Attorney to Port of Long Beach
General Manager. Specification No. 528. Port of Long Beach Records Center,
Long Beach, CA.
Memo dated May 27, 1959 from Selectile Company to Millie & Severson & C.L. Peck.
Specification No. 528. Port of Long Beach Records Center, Long Beach, CA.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long
Beach, July 23, 1956, August 6, 1956; August 13, 1956; September 11, 1956;
July 25, 1957, August 31, 1959. Port of Long Beach Records Center, Long
Beach, CA.
“Mural Designed.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter 1959): 13.
“New Administration Building Dedicated.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring
1960): 1-13.
“New Name for New Street.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 5, No. 4 (Fall 1959): 23.
139
“Port of Long Beach Advertisement Regarding Opening of Highway 710.” Harbor
Highlights Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall 1958): na.
“President Reports.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter 1960): 1, 5.
“Seafarer’s Memorial Service Marks National Maritime Day,” Harbor Highlights Vol. 1,
No. 3 (Summer 1977), 11.
“Target: 1977.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 3, No. 3 (Summer 1957): 1-3.
“Trials and Tribulations Shaped Port’s Future.” Harbor Highlights Vol. 4, No. 4
(Summer 1981): 4-14. (The Volume numbers were reset when the Harbor
Highlights publications resumed following several years of inactivity.)
Gladding, McBean and Company Manuscript Collection
Inter-Office Memorandum dated October 24, 1958. Gladding McBean Collection Job
#7220, Harbor Commission Administration Building Pt. 2 (1958-1959) Long
Beach, CA. California History Section, California State Library, Sacramento,
CA.
Published Sources
Abbott, Carl. How Cities Won The West: Four Centuries of Urban Change in Western
North America. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2008.
American Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433, http://www.nps.gov/history/locallaw/anti1906.htm (accessed November 13, 2013).
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2012 CEQA Statutes and Guidelines
Handbook. Palm Desert, CA: AEP, 2012. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ (accessed
November 13, 2013).
Barrier, Catherine. “Port of Long Beach Administration Building: Building, Structure,
and Object Record,” Port of Long Beach Cultural Resources Inventory for the
Middle Harbor Memorandum. CH2M Hill, New Orleans, LA: Port of Long
Beach, 2006.
Berner, Loretta. A Step Back In Time. Long Beach, CA: Historical Society of Long
Beach, 1990.
Burns, John A., ed. Recording Historic Structures. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 2004.
City of Long Beach Municipal Code 16.52.440, 16.52.450, 990.
140
“City Orders Hospital Plans.” Press-Telegram May 16, 1956.
“Construction of Skyscraper is Under Way.” Van Nuys News March 13, 1958.
“Contracts Let For New School.” Independent September 13, 1949.
Craig, Lee. "Harbor Department’s Big, New Office Building Nearly Ready." Independent
Press-Telegram. January 5, 1960.
CH2M Hill. Port of Long Beach Cultural Resources Inventory for the Middle Harbor
Memorandum. New Orleans, LA: Port of Long Beach, 2006.
Davis, Mike. City of Quartz. New York, NY: First Vintage Books Edition, 1992.
DeAtley, Richard. Long Beach:The Golden Shore, A History of the City and the Port.
Houston, TX: Pioneer Publications, Inc., 1988.
“Douglas Programs Jet Plant Project.” Long Beach Independent Press-Telegram March
4, 1956.
“Downtown L.B. Seen as Shopping Center of Area by Barker Bros.” Independent PressTelegram June 6, 1954.
Downtown Long Beach Associates, History.
“Drawings in Tile Decorate School.” Independent Press-Telegram November 13, 1956.
“Gem in a Hillside Setting.” Independent Press-Telegram Southland Magazine October
6, 1957.
Grobaty, Tim. Long Beach Chronicles: From Pioneers to the 1933 Earthquake.
Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2012.
“Ground Broken for New Church of Christ.” Independent November 7, 1947.
“Harbor Dept. Claim OK’d.” Long Beach Press-Telegram November 20, 1951.
Harris, Cyril M., ed. Historic Architecture Sourcebook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1977.
Historic Sites Act of 1935, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 461-467, www.nps.gov/history/locallaw/FHPL_HistSites.pdf (accessed November 13, 2013).
Holstein, Walter Edwin. A History of Wilmington from the Spanish Period to 1931.
Privately published, 1935.
141
King, Thomas F. Thinking About Cultural Resource Management: Essays From The
Edge. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002.
“L. B. Harbor Board Holds Up Plans for New Restaurant.” Independent September 16,
1952.
Long Beach, Sanborn Map and Publishing Company. Published 1888, 1905, 1914.
“Millie & Severson, Inc., Engineering Contractors of Industrial Buildings.” Parade of
Progress Edition Independent Press-Telegram October 21 1952.
“Millie Severson logs 30th anniversary in L.B.” Independent Press-Telegram September
17, 1975.
Monkkonen, Eric H. America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities and
Towns 1780-1980. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1988.
Murtagh, William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America,
3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
Oliver, Myrna. “Clair L. Peck, Jr.: Contractor Built Southland Landmarks.” Los Angeles
Times December 16, 1998.
“Open House on the Peninsula.” Independent Press-Telegram Southland Magazine April
24, 1955.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended through 1992, 16 U.S.C. 470,
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm (accessed November 13,
2013).
National Parks Service. HABS/HAER Guidelines: HABS Historical Reports. Washington
D.C: NPS, 2001.
National Parks Service. HABS/HAER Photographs: Specifications and Guidelines.
Washington D.C: NPS, 2003.
National Parks Service. “Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)” and “Historic
American Landscapes Survey (HALS),” National Parks Service,
http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/about.htm (accessed November 13, 2013).
National Parks Service. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER Standards.
Washington D.C: NPS, 1990.
“Noble L. Millie rites Tuesday,” Press-Telegram February 18, 1974.
142
“Notice to Contractors.” Billings Gazette July 3, 1919.
“Palos Verdes City Hall Construction Is Started.” Independent Press-Telegram,
September 28, 1958.
“Pier A Café Designing Set.” Independent August 19, 1952.
“Press Dispatches.” Sacramento Daily Union October 26, 1869.
Queenan, Charles F. Long Beach and Los Angles: A Tale of Two Ports. Northridge, CA:
Windsor Publications, Inc., 1986.
Schipske, Gerrie. Early Long Beach. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2011.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). “Administration Building and
Maintenance Facility Project,” Final Environmental Impact Report. Los Angeles,
CA: Port of Long Beach, 2008.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). “Administration Building and
Maintenance Facility Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,”
Final Environmental Impact Report and Application Summary Report. Los
Angeles, CA: Port of Long Beach, 2008.
“School Plans Are Revamped.” Press-Telegram November 28, 1950.
“Southeast of the City: Long Beach.” Los Angeles Times January 3, 1928.
“Southland Homes.” Independent Press-Telegram Southland Magazine November 24,
1957.
Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations
7th ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and
Practice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000.
“Warren Dedrick services held,” Independent Press-Telegram October 9, 1975.
“Western Trend of Industry.” Los Angeles Times June 6, 1923.
“$16 Million Forum Will Open,” LaVerna Leader-San Dimas Press-Diamond BarWalnut Valley Bulletin December 27, 1967.