FIFTEEN SECONDS IN THE FALL:
THE LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE AND DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ
Erin M. McMurry
B.A., University of California, San Diego, 2004
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
HISTORY
(Public History)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
FIFTEEN SECONDS IN THE FALL:
THE LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE AND DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ
A Project
by
Erin M. McMurry
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Lee M.A. Simpson
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Christopher J. Castaneda
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Erin M. McMurry
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
Dr. Christopher J. Castaneda
Department of History
iii
________________
Date
Abstract
of
FIFTEEN SECONDS IN THE FALL: THE LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE AND
DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ
by
Erin M. McMurry
The Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989 devastated Santa Cruz’s historic
core and led to the de-listing of the area from the National Register of Historic Places.
Loma Prieta was not the first disaster to strike the city’s calamity prone downtown area.
The project uses maps, photographs, architectural histories, the National Register
nomination, newspapers, and other primary and secondary sources to trace the
environmental and disaster history first of Santa Cruz city and county, then of downtown
Santa Cruz as a whole. The project finally narrows the focus further and inventories the
historic buildings present on Santa Cruz’s downtown Pacific Garden Mall in October
1989. The project concludes that Santa Cruz’s experience presents a lesson to other
municipalities and the public. That lesson is that comprehensive disaster planning is the
key to protecting both lives and historic resources.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Lee M.A. Simpson
_______________________
Date
iv
PROLOGUE
October is an interesting month in California, arguably the best month weatherwise. In Northern California, unbeknownst to the shorts and sundress clad tourists who
spent summer days on the sand wishing for boots and sweatshirts to combat the ocean
breezes and overcast skies of coastal summers, in October the fog clears from the coast
and even chilly San Francisco basks in seventy-plus degree temperatures and sunshine.
The Valley breathes a sigh of relief as it says goodbye to the last 100 degree days and
enjoys a few weeks of not too hot, not too cold, but just right days that would please even
Goldilocks before the winter rains and tule fog inundate the area. In Southern California,
the story is much the same. The infamous Santa Ana winds blow in from the desert,
scouring the clouds from the coast as summer blows its last warm breath out to sea.
Amidst all this climatological perfection though lurks a certain tension and anxiety in the
air because October, in California, is not just a month of perfect weather, but a month of
disaster. It was an early October Sierra storm that doomed the Donner Party. The most
recent major earthquakes on the precarious Hayward fault struck in October of 1865 and
1868. California’s top five most destructive fires ripped through innumerable misplaced
hillside housing developments in October.1 Those same Santa Anas that create excellent
beach weather at the coast roar through the Southland’s inland canyons and the Oakland
Hills carrying the embers of wildfire to the Pacific. These events create a feeling of
1
Cal Fire, 20 Largest California Wildland Fires (By Structures Destroyed), Cal Fire,
http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_statsevents, (Accessed January 16, 2010). “Most destructive”
in this case refers to the number of structures destroyed. Not surprisingly, two of these fires, the 2003 Cedar
Fire and the 2007 Witch Fire, both in San Diego County, also feature in the top five of Cal Fire’s list of
largest fires by acreage.
v
foreboding in California as emergency planners annually wait for the proverbial other
shoe to drop. On October 17, 1989, in the central coast city of Santa Cruz, it did.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the many people who supported me and helped me
accomplish this task. First, thank you to Dr. Lee Simpson in the Department of History
for being a fantastic advisor. I could not have asked for someone better. Thank you also
to Dr. Christopher Castaneda, my second reader, for taking the time to read and comment
on this massive monograph. Thank you to my friends Brandi Alderson Noordmans,
Jillian Ritter, Diana Fan, Summer Judice, Mayra Escobar, and Linda Espinoza for always
understanding when I was a terrible friend and did not go out or respond to emails for
weeks. Thank you very much to the Ladies of the Local Government unit at the
California State Office of Historic Preservation, Lucinda Woodward, Marie Nelson,
Shannon Lauchner and Michelle Messinger for teaching me so much beyond the
classroom and always making me feel like one of the team. Thanks also to Joseph
McDole and Eric Allison at OHP for your support and for those innumerable Annex
conversations. Thank you my fellow interns Kristen Shedd and Amber Piona for all the
commiseration. Thank you to my supervisors at UC Davis, Erin Rick and Diane Branam,
for allowing me to put my studies first. Thank you so much to my friends at UCSD Kathy
Masey and Julie Lance and to the students of IR/PS for encouraging me to undertake this
endeavor in the first place and for showing me that I could. Thank you to my trusty
Golden Retriever Bailey for always keeping my feet warm. Last, but not least, thank you
to my parents and my brother Joey for always supporting me, for moving me up and
down the state, and for giving up so much to allow me to go to school and live the
wonderful life I live.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Prologue .................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ……..…………………….…………………………………………… 1
2. FIRES, FLOODS, FOOLISHNESS, AND FLIMSY BUILDINGS: THE MULTI-FACETED
STUDY OF “NATURAL” DISASTER ................................................................................. 16
3. THE PHOENIX RISES. AGAIN, AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN..................................... 37
Downtown: Mud, Ashes and Bricks ........................................................................... 60
4. DOWNTOWN SURVEY – BOUNDARIES AND METHODS...................................... 89
Methods/Sources ......................................................................................................... 91
5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 97
Professional Recommendations .................................................................................. 97
Academic Recommendations.................................................................................... 106
Appendix – Survey Forms .................................................................................................... 110
Index of Properties .................................................................................................... 110
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 230
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The wise people take earthquakes as they take strawberries, as a part of life’s
eventful experience.1
October 17, 1989 dawned much like any other day in Santa Cruz, the seaside city
nestled between the mountains and the ocean on the north end of California’s Monterey
Bay. UCSC students attended classes at their campus on the hill. Friends met at the
historic Cooper House for lunch at The Crepe Place. Workers commuted “over the hill”
to San Jose; out to the Texas Instruments, Lipton, and Wrigley plants on the Westside, or
up to the Lockheed test base in Bonny Doon. Surfers caught great waves at Steamer
Lane. Shoppers strolled and street musicians strummed guitars on the downtown Pacific
Garden Mall. Downtown businesses geared up for the approaching holiday shopping
season, hoping to draw patrons away from the dreaded “big box” stores in neighboring
Capitola. October 17 began as a regular day in “Berkeley By The Sea,” but it ended with
six people dead, 670 injured, and over $430 million worth of property damage done after
the largest earthquake since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake rocked the region in the
early evening.2 October 17, 1989 was not just another day.
A few things make that day unique. October 17 was unusually balmy. The air
hung hot, heavy, and still (known even today in Santa Cruz as “earthquake weather”).
Like their northern counterparts in San Francisco and Oakland, many Santa Cruzans left
work early to catch Game Three of the World Series, the “Battle of Bay” between the San
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake Notes,” April 19, 1906.
Santa Cruz Public Libraries, “Facts About the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/264/.
1
2
2
Francisco Giants and Oakland A’s. Just before game time, at approximately 5:04pm, a
deep rumble issued from below the earth and grew to a crescendo of deafening sound. A
few miles south of downtown Santa Cruz, the great Pacific and North American tectonic
plates had slipped on their grinding journey in opposite directions and sent shockwaves
radiating outwards from the earthquake’s epicenter deep in the Forest of Nisene Marks
State Park. The soon-to-be-named Loma Prieta earthquake shook the ground from Santa
Cruz to San Francisco and beyond for fifteen earth-shattering seconds.
When the shaking stopped, stunned residents slowly emerged from their homes
and businesses and reality began to set in. Calls flooded into the county 911-dispatch
center reporting the earthquake and minor injuries. Dispatchers soon were forced to hang
up on callers not in need of immediate assistance. A home on Myrtle Street on the
Westside exploded into flames, a blaze likely sparked by a broken gas line. The Highway
1 bridge over Struve Slough in Watsonville collapsed, thrusting the support pillars up
through the roadway. In the San Lorenzo Valley, nearly 300 homes either fell in on
themselves or tumbled down hillsides. Countless chimneys crumbled and walls cracked
countywide. The historic downtown Pacific Garden Mall was the hardest hit. Dazed mall
workers and patrons escaped from unreinforced masonry buildings onto a street totally
unlike the one that existed when the day began. Bricks, plaster, and downed trees littered
the street. Fallen walls had crushed parked cars. Storefronts had belched their wares out
onto the sidewalk. 3
San Francisco Earthquake Research Project, “Santa Cruz County 911 Recording Transcription, Oct. 17,
1989,” Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco,1990, http://www.sfmuseum.net/1989/sc911.html;
3
3
Many Santa Cruz residents spent the long night after the quake sleeping in tents,
cars, and backyards. Frequent aftershocks rattled nerves and threatened to bring down
damaged structures. Power was out in most areas, making a dark, rainy night even darker.
Residents clung to local AM radio station KSCO for news and information about the
disaster.4 Rumors abounded that exploding gas mains had set large areas of the Westside
aflame. Early reports estimated that upwards of twenty people died on the downtown
Mall. Lack of news coverage about Santa Cruz dismayed worried out-of-state relatives
who could not reach Santa Cruz residents.
Relatives’ concerns turned out to be unwarranted in most cases since the vast
majority of county residents survived uninjured with only a few cracks in their walls.
Many who experienced the quake even look back fondly on the days after the earthquake
as the ultimate experience of communal spirit. Residents barbequed and slept in tents
with neighbors they had barely spoken to before. Relief efforts swung into high gear
almost immediately to help the many who did lose homes in the quake. People who had
never volunteered before showed up at shelters to serve food to those less fortunate. The
Red Cross sheltered 3,000 people and distributed over 9,000 meals per day in the first
two weeks after the quake. Donations flooded in from across the country and the world.5
Soon, the power came back on, road crews started repairing damaged streets and
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5:04pm The Great Quake of 1989: A Pictoral of the Devastation in Santa Cruz County
(Santa Cruz, CA: Santa Cruz Sentinel Publishers Co., 1990), 9, 61, 79.
4
State of California, Seismic Safety Commission, Planning for the Next One: Transcripts of Hearings on
the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989. (Sacramento: n.d.), 373.
5
State of California, Seismic Safety Commission, Planning for the Next One, 379, 383.
4
highways, and residents began cleaning up. Life, for most people, returned to some
semblance of normal within several weeks of the quake.
That was not the case downtown. Portions of the downtown area remained
cordoned off for over three years after the earthquake. Even today, twenty years later, one
vacant lot remains on Pacific Avenue. The geographical definition of “downtown Santa
Cruz” depends on who provides it, but whatever the boundaries of the overall area may
be, the greatest concentration of earthquake damage in the city of Santa Cruz occurred in
and around the defined limits of the National Register-listed Pacific Avenue Historic
District, the area commonly known as the Pacific Garden Mall.6 Water/Mission Street on
the north, Front Street on the east, nearly all of the 1100 block of Pacific Avenue on the
south, and most of the west side of Pacific Avenue on the west formed the district
boundaries.7 The district included fifty-four buildings, with thirty-six of those buildings
contributing to the district’s significance as the city’s historic commercial core and as
representative of distinctive commercial architecture.8 After the earthquake and the
ensuing demolitions, the district lost nineteen contributing buildings, leading to its
removal from the National Register in 1992.9 The district though, did not encompass the
For some, “downtown” stretches from Highway 1 to the beach. For others, “downtown” includes only
Pacific Avenue. In this study, the term “downtown” is used to refer to the area bounded by roughly River
Street and the base of Mission Hill on the north, the San Lorenzo River on the east, Laurel Street to the
south, and Chestnut Street on the west. The greatest emphasis in this project though is placed on Pacific
Avenue around the limits of the former historic district, the area formerly known as the Pacific Garden
Mall.
7
Larry Pearson, “National Register Nomination for the Pacific Avenue Historic District,” Santa Cruz City
Planning Department, 1985, 7. The district’s boundary lines moved eastward in some places to exclude
buildings on the west side of Pacific Avenue on the 1100 - 1500 blocks.
8
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 8.
9
California State Office of Historic Preservation, “Pacific Avenue Historic District, Santa Cruz, California,
Amendment,” March 16, 1992. The district lost three more contributors to demolition in 1992 and 1993.
6
5
entire Pacific Avenue streetscape, so the scope of the devastation on the Pacific Garden
Mall increases when the area under consideration includes the buildings excluded by the
National Register district boundaries, many of which were also damaged and
subsequently demolished. On the Pacific Garden Mall between Water/Mission Street on
the north, and Cathcart Street on the south, no block on Pacific Avenue escaped
devastation, with some blocks nearly wiped out entirely.
Most of these downtown buildings were unreinforced masonry (URM) structures,
meaning that they were constructed of unsupported brick and extremely vulnerable to
earthquake damage. During the earthquake, these buildings sustained varying levels of
damage. The earthquake sent some buildings’ façade bricks and parapets tumbling into
the street. On other buildings, walls or roofs partially or entirely collapsed. Directly after
the earthquake, the city immediately cordoned off the area and began searching for the
injured or dead. Once the initial search and rescue efforts ended, city officials began to
wrestle with a variety pressing concerns. These matters included allowing downtown
residents and business owners who lived or worked in damaged buildings to remove their
belongings, determining where to house displaced residents and merchants, and deciding
how exactly to handle the damage to the city’s biggest sales tax generating area. Historic
preservation did not number high on the list. The city quickly approved the demolition of
the landmark Cooper House at the corner of Pacific Avenue and Cooper Street and the
6
cranes began knocking down the treasured structure only nine short days after the
earthquake. This was to be one of the first of many demolitions to come.10
Local preservationists and preservation groups at the state and national level,
including the California Preservation Foundation and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, argued that such demolitions were unnecessary. These groups organized to
save damaged Pacific Garden Mall historic buildings from post-quake demolition. They
contended that repairing the damage to most buildings was not only economically
feasible, but also the best path to downtown recovery. City leaders and property owners
remained unconvinced. As the days and weeks after the earthquake stretched into months
and years, preservationists lost bitter battle after battle and significant historic buildings
like the St. George Hotel and Elks Building fell before the wrecking ball. Despite
preservationists’ best efforts, the Pacific Garden Mall’s historic buildings, and the name
“Pacific Garden Mall” itself, disappeared. Downtown Santa Cruz would never be the
same again.
The period after Loma Prieta was not the first time such a statement could be
made about downtown Santa Cruz. This project did not start out as an examination of that
element of Santa Cruz history though. This study began as a survey of the impact of the
Loma Prieta earthquake on the Pacific Avenue Historic District in Santa Cruz, and how
preservationists’ experience in Santa Cruz changed historic preservation and cultural
resource management best practices. The earthquake experience in Santa Cruz and other
Geoff Dunn and Rick Hildreth, “Razing Questions,” Pacific Monthly, undated, in the Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Newspaper Clipping File, “Historic Buildings” folder, 33.
10
7
heavily affected small towns did indeed serve as a wake-up call to preservationists and
cultural resource managers who found themselves largely powerless to prevent the
demolition of large numbers of historic resources, especially in cities’ historic downtown
cores. This project shifted slightly in focus though as two points became clear. First,
preservationists’ struggles in Santa Cruz alone did not change preservation practices.
Instead, the positive and negative experiences of several towns including Hollister, Los
Gatos, and south Santa Cruz County’s Watsonville, combined to teach preservation
practitioners about post-disaster cultural resource management. The narrative of postearthquake preservation issues in all of these towns proved to be too large for the scope
of this project, although it certainly is a topic that calls for further research. Fortunately
for this project though, a second point, more relevant to the Santa Cruz-exclusive focus of
this monograph, emerged and proved to be more interesting than post-disaster
preservation practices lessons alone.
That point is that Santa Cruz city and County, and especially downtown Santa
Cruz, are unusually disaster-prone, and that choices made by each successive generation
of people, not nature alone, created this proclivity for catastrophe. This line of thought
has its genesis in Chapter Two, a historiography of disaster studies literature. The survey
examines ten books and several articles located through searches of the University of
California and California State University libraries and journal databases, as well as a
search of book super warehouse website Amazon.com. Searches for terms like “disaster,”
“natural disaster,” or the names of individual calamities, such as “1906 earthquake”
yielded many results, but few monographs penned by academic historians. Students of a
8
variety of other disciplines took up the disaster torch long before historians did. Disaster
studies, the historiography concludes, is a field with a sparse population of historians.
This is not detrimental to the historical narrative of disasters though, the study argues.
These sociologists, political scientists, oceanographers and others became historians as
they studied the historical record to inform their own research and perspectives. This
multitude of perspectives serves the disaster studies field well because disasters are such
massive events that one perspective or discipline alone cannot possibly foster complete
understanding of all the many facets of catastrophe.
One facet in particular, human culpability for “natural” disasters is the focus of
most of the few historians who do study disasters. Environmental historians like Mike
Davis, Ted Steinberg, and Stephen J. Pyne examine human interaction with, and
perception of, nature and the environment. They argue that human actions, and
sometimes-downright stupidity, are to blame for so-called “natural” disasters. These
historians demonstrate that developers, individuals, and governments disregard
environmental conditions and build anyway on floodplains, on soft soil that amplifies
earthquake shaking, and in areas prone to wildfires and hurricanes, putting themselves in
the path of natural forces and setting the stage for disaster. Davis, Steinberg and their
colleagues place the blame for the inevitable calamities that result from this intersection
of nature and built environment not on nature, but on the individuals and governments
that persist in building and rebuilding in dangerous areas.
Chapter Three applies the environmental history approach of Davis and Steinberg
to the history of Santa Cruz County. The chapter shows that many areas of the county fall
9
into the category of hazardous, with no area more perilous and misplaced than downtown
Santa Cruz. Early research, performed to gather data about the impact of the 1989
earthquake on downtown, revealed that an examination of the interaction of nature,
people and the built environment downtown and in the county overall was especially
appropriate for Santa Cruz County. The initial “survey” of the pre-1989 downtown built
environment used architectural historian John Chase’s book, The Sidewalk Companion to
Santa Cruz Architecture, the original National Register nomination forms for the Pacific
Avenue Historic District, and data forms from the 1976 Santa Cruz City survey
performed by Charles Hall Page & Associates. Using these sources, the early survey
found clusters of buildings with similar construction or remodeling dates that
corresponded with the dates of several different disasters. Disasters, it seemed, greatly
shaped the development of downtown Santa Cruz.
Further research, beginning with viewing Monterey Bay area historian
extraordinaire Sandy Lydon’s “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary” presentation, confirmed
these suspicions. Professor Lydon talked about other disasters that befell downtown Santa
Cruz just as much as he discussed the Loma Prieta earthquake. Lydon targeted
downtown’s foolish location next to the San Lorenzo River as the root cause of most of
these disasters. “Move the whole damn thing [downtown]” Lydon recounted telling
Vision Santa Cruz leaders responsible for post-Loma Prieta downtown rebuilding, “Pick
it up and move it. It’s a mistake, replicated on a mistake, compounded by another
10
mistake. Move the damn town.”11 Not surprisingly, as Mike Davis or Ted Steinberg
would have predicted, local business and political leaders were not swayed. I was though.
Lydon’s approach and observations made perfect sense when considered in the context of
the earlier historiographical readings conducted for this project and the preliminary
downtown survey.
Inspired by Professor Lydon’s talk and the environmental approach practiced by
other disaster historians, I noted any mention of natural forces and calamities in Santa
Cruz’s past that surfaced during my research. This began as somewhat of a side project,
conducted while I delved into the area’s history to provide a brief historic context for the
downtown survey. Santa Cruz is fortunate to have many dedicated local historians, but
few focus specifically on the larger narrative of human-environmental interaction in
Santa Cruz County. Earlier historians like Leon Rowland and Margaret Koch provide
well-researched monographs that trace development and people in the area’s past, but
barely mention historical disasters at all and generally only in passing. They do, however,
offer excellent insights into what attracted people, from the Spanish to valley dwelling
tourists, to Santa Cruz, and what those groups did and built once they arrived. At the
other end of the spectrum are historians like Ross Eric Gibson and Daniel McMahon who
offer articles on single disasters or types of disasters without considering the larger role
natural elements played in the region’s development. Taken together though, these
sources and others began to provide a compelling narrative.
Sandy Lydon, “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary” (lecture, Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, CA,
October 14, 2009).
11
11
Despite the scattered nature of the county’s environmental and disaster history,
the notations of alluring natural resources here, or a flood there, added up to a distinct
pattern of settlement, environmental exploitation, and disaster. The “brief” context grew
exponentially as a link between the area’s natural resources and its economic
development became clear. At this intersection of humans and the natural environment
stood disaster. As Chapter Three describes, the county’s natural resources were
irresistible to each successive group that dominated Santa Cruz’s political and economic
landscape. The mountains, the forest, the river, and the sea drew in sequence, heavy
industry, tourists and liberal college students. Every group valued the natural
environment for different reasons and constructed elements of the built environment that
reflected their individual motives. In their rush to profit though, each group’s actions, or
inactions, made the area’s built environment vulnerable to natural forces. These decisions
elevated the instances of floods, fires and earthquakes to strike the city to the level of
disasters. Like the disasters Steinberg discussed in Florida and Davis tracked in Los
Angeles, these disasters in Santa Cruz County resulted from human choices that put the
built environment and natural forces on a collision course. Chapter Three charts this
course and the resultant disasters first through the county’s history, then through the
development of downtown Santa Cruz.
Chapter Four, the survey of downtown Santa Cruz, narrows this project’s focus
even further by concentrating on specific downtown buildings. As touched on previously,
the survey began as an inventory of only the Pacific Avenue Historic District and
included only the buildings in the defined boundaries of the district. As this study
12
evolved and moved beyond the Loma Prieta earthquake’s effects on the National Register
district alone, the boundaries for the survey changed to include the entire area most
deeply affected by the earthquake and previous disasters. These new boundaries do not
shift the survey area by far. The change largely leaves the northern survey boundary at
the triangular confluence of Water/Mission Street and the ends of Pacific Avenue and
Front Street, but moves the line northwest slightly to include the Santa Cruz Coffee
Roasting Company building on Pacific Avenue, the first building that fronted Pacific
Avenue. The shift extends the survey boundary on the south end to Cathcart Street to
include the two buildings excluded by the historic district boundaries. The east side of
Pacific Avenue forms the eastern survey line, with a brief jog further eastward on the
one-block long Cooper Street. The entire western side of Pacific Avenue forms the
boundary on the west, including buildings on every block excluded by the historic district
borders.
This boundary change occurred because the historic district’s boundaries,
especially on the west side, excluded large parts of the Pacific Avenue streetscape. The
Loma Prieta earthquake and earlier disasters had little regard for the historic district’s
boundaries. These events devastated the excluded areas just as they decimated the parts
of downtown within the historic district’s boundaries. The areas excluded by the district’s
boundaries formed part of downtown’s disaster narrative and thus merited inclusion in
this study. Similarly, shifting the boundary line for the new survey westward on Front
Street only excludes two historic district non-contributors and two buildings that, while
13
individually National Register eligible, do not contribute to the downtown disaster
narrative.
The survey traces the downtown disaster narrative through an examination of the
buildings present on the defined length Pacific Avenue and Cooper Street on October 17,
1989. The survey assumes that the Loma Prieta earthquake has not yet occurred and
describes the structures as such using photographs, newspaper articles, previous surveys,
and other sources. The survey also offers information on each building’s history,
including construction and remodel dates that indicate the building’s disaster history. To
demonstrate how the Loma Prieta earthquake radically affected the survey area, the
survey indicates whether or not the subject building survived the earthquake and
subsequent demolitions. Lastly, for the benefit of any potential local readers or visitors
that associate particular buildings with certain businesses, the survey also lists the names
of the businesses that occupied each building in 1989 and that occupy the surviving or
replacement buildings in 2010. All of this makes the survey unique because it studies
buildings and a streetscape that largely are no longer extant. Instead of surveying
exclusively what exists downtown today, the survey inventories change wrought by
disaster. It both informs and reinforces the points of the earlier chapters and the study
overall.
This study then, when conceptualized visually, is an inverted triangle with a
narrowing focus at each level. At the top, the historiography of disaster studies provides
the widest vista, surveying the largest historical, geographical and disciplinary areas. The
focus narrows at the next level with the application of the environmental history
14
perspective to the history of the Santa Cruz area and the study of disaster in Santa Cruz
city and county. At the subsequent layer the geographical focus shrinks even further, to
the environmental and disaster history of just downtown Santa Cruz. Finally, at the point
of the triangle, is the study of individual downtown buildings and their evolution around,
or because of, disasters.
The study concludes with several recommendations. As is the case with most
disaster studies, this project advises property owners, all levels of government, advocacy
organizations, and private citizens to be proactive rather than reactive and prepare for
potential disasters. The recommendations call for greater efforts by local governments to
incorporate the protection of historic resources into their disaster planning. Related to
this, the recommendations urge private preservation organizations to develop their own
disaster plans and to build relationships with local governments before disasters strike.
The section notes that if governments, developers and citizens continue to occupy, build,
and rebuild in hazardous areas, they must spend the money to mitigate the danger they
have created. This includes the recommendation that property owners retrofit hazardous
buildings and that local governments require them to do so. Finally, the recommendations
highlight topics of interest for further research beyond the scope of this project. Santa
Cruz is a fascinating place, and the Loma Prieta earthquake truly was one of the area’s
seminal events. Journalists, academics and everyday citizens have already studied many
angles of the disaster, but there are many more to go.
This project studies one of those angles of the Loma Prieta earthquake and of the
history of Santa Cruz. The environmental approach of this project tells the story of a
15
community, of a place, that is intimately connected with its natural environment both for
sustenance and for pleasure. Santa Cruz is also a region rocked by so many catastrophes
one almost wonders why people keep coming back for more. The place itself provides the
explanation. The trees, the mountains, the sea, so appealing to generations past, make the
place difficult to resist, but the futility of resistance comes with a steep price.
16
Chapter 2
FIRES, FLOODS, FOOLISHNESS, AND FLIMSY BUILDINGS: THE MULTIFACETED STUDY OF “NATURAL” DISASTER
The Loma Prieta earthquake was not the first, and certainly not the last, natural
disaster1 to affect an urban environment. From ancient Pompeii to modern San Francisco,
the rubble of calamities litters history. The enormity of these events necessitates their
examination at numerous levels and from many different viewpoints. Thus, disaster
studies developed as a truly interdisciplinary practice. It reaches beyond historians and
taps many fields and talents, blurring the often overly strict line between academic fields.
Disaster studies include sociologists, political scientists, engineers, urban planners,
geologists, architects, and a small but growing number of historians, among others. This
does not mean however, that disaster studies are mostly ahistorical. Instead, students of
these other disciplines must act like historians as they examine primary documents and
contemporary disaster accounts to inform their own research. At the same time, the
historians that do study disasters draw on these other fields and use multiple approaches
of analysis within the historical field.
The interdisciplinary nature of disaster studies and historians’ application of
multiple different historical approaches to the study of disaster history allows for the
greatest understanding of these events. Disasters are massive physical, social, cultural,
economic, political and occasionally actual earth-shattering events that are too great and
significant to be looked at in only one way. Multi-faceted historical and interdisciplinary
The terms “natural disaster” and later just “disaster” refer to calamities involving forces of nature, socalled “acts of God”: floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. This paper also studies fires,
still considering fire a force of nature, despite the fact that humans sometimes start fires.
1
17
analyses allow the many competing narratives of calamities to be told. When considered
together, these varied methods and viewpoints add to the understanding of the individual
event and also to the larger narrative of disaster.
Despite this great and varied interest in disaster studies, professional academic
historians though, in comparison to their colleagues in the social and physical sciences,
have been surprisingly slow to study historical disasters. 2 Ohio State University historian
John C. Burnham wrote in the April 1988 issue of the American Historical Association
newsletter that historians neglect the study of natural disasters. Burnham recounts his
experience in 1964 when a team of Ohio State sociologists asked him to join them on a
research trip to study the recent Good Friday earthquake in Alaska. After Burnham
researched the subject of natural disasters and found that historians had written very little
on the subject, Burnham:
…regretfully concluded that a historian, even a historian of science, in fact had
nothing to contribute to the disaster research team. The sociologists were already
asking systematically such obvious questions as I would have asked about the
social impact of events on the individual sufferers and especially upon social
structures…it was in the face of such thorough investigations that I decided to
stay home.3
Burnham here makes two points that are still valid today. First, historians largely leave
the study of natural disasters to other disciplines. A search of the 191 history journals
The term “academic historian” and later “historian” is used here to refer to a person with an advanced
degree in history that generally is affiliated with a college or university.
3
John C. Burnham, “A Neglected Field: The History of Natural Disasters,” Perspectives 26, no. 4 (1988),
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/~landwebj/400/burnham.htm
2
18
accessible through the JSTOR online article database illustrates this assertion. Of the 321
hits generated by an article search for the phrase “natural disaster” in the full text of
documents, only eighteen articles examined one or more natural disasters in the United
States.4 Broadening the search to include more disciplines’ journals produces better
results, 2408 hits. Many of the articles examined for this study (including several by
environmental historian Stephen J. Pyne), do not appear in historical journals, but in
publications such as Science and Nature.5 Judging from the available articles, other
disciplines outpace history in the study of disaster.
Burnham’s second point affirms the notion that interdisciplinary studies are
important to the study of disaster. Burnham notes that sociologists (among others) have a
long-standing academic tradition of systematically studying disasters. Burnham’s
observation that his sociologist colleagues asked important questions that he, as a
historian, would also ask, demonstrates how disaster studies blur the line between
disciplines. Research performed for this project on the Loma Prieta earthquake confirms
these assertions. Sociologists specifically wrote at least two of the scholarly works on the
earthquake.6 Like Burnham, this historian found that sociologists and other members of
4
Search performed December 4, 2009, www.jstor.org.
Examples include: Dennis Dean, “The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906,” Annals of Science 50 (1993):
501-521. Stephen J. Pyne, “Wildlands: The Firefight,” Whole Earth Winter (1999): 59-60. Stephen J. Pyne,
“The Fire This Time, and Next,” Science 294, no. 5544 (2001), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3084934. Paul
Segall, “New Insights into Old Earthquakes,” Nature, 388 (1997): 121-122. It is interesting to note that a
JSTOR author search for historian Stephen J. Pyne generates ten results, four of which appear in scientific
and environmental journals, not historical journals.
6
It could be argued that not enough time has passed since the 1989 earthquake to gain a historical
perspective, but the fact that academic historians discussed in this paper, namely Ted Steinberg and Ari
Kelman, study 2005’s Hurricane Katrina further refutes the argument that it is too soon for historians to
study an earthquake that occurred only twenty years ago. The two works referred to here are Robert Bolin,
ed., The Loma Prieta Earthquake: Studies of Short Term Impacts. (Boulder, CO: University of Colorado,
5
19
the social and physical sciences provided pertinent information to vital to historical
studies. Most notably in the case of Loma Prieta, sociologists contributed analysis of the
public reaction in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, while engineers offered
valuable assessments of building conditions. Both studies are integral parts of the
earthquake narrative. It is but one example of how the interdisciplinary approach to
disaster studies aids in “…recapture[ing] some very interesting historical material from
non-specialist writers” and in telling the disaster story.7
The aforementioned articles found in non-historical journals are examples of how
historical material can be “recaptured” from other disciplines and add to the interpretation
of the many impacts of past disasters. Two articles examine the scientific aspect of the
1906 San Francisco earthquake. Humanist Dennis Dean traces the impact of the
earthquake on science in his 1992 article in the Annals of Science. Dean argues that the
1906 earthquake should not be seen only as a human event, but also as a scientific event
that led to modern understandings of earthquakes and the San Andreas Fault. Stanford
geophysicist Paul Segall confirms Dean’s hypothesis in his 1997 article in Nature. Segall
discusses in scientific terms the importance of the data collected by early seismologists
after the 1906 earthquake to current seismology. Segall illustrates how scientists must
sometimes act like historians to further their own research. Taken together, Segall and
Dean provide analysis of a noteworthy aspect of the disaster not generally a large part of
the narrative of 1906. Segall’s article especially confirms the importance of looking at the
1990). and Richard A. Gendron, “Faultlines of Power: The Political Economy of Redevelopment in a
Progressive City After a Natural Disaster” (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz, 1998).
7
Burnham, 5.
20
scientific angle of the 1906 disaster. As a geophysicist he can truly speak to the
significance of the earthquake’s effect on science. Students of various fields, including
the physical sciences, bring these kinds of important viewpoints to the table.8
Science plays a large role in Tsunami!, the preeminent work on the history of
tsunamis. Author Walter C. Dudley, a University of Hawaii oceanographer, and coauthor Min Lee, provide an excellent example of how history informs science, and how
an understanding of the science behind disasters is also important for history and
historians. The well-researched book uses oral histories (carefully collected by Lee and
the Pacific Tsunami Museum from the survivors of the 1946 and 1960 Hilo tsunamis),
literature and legends, government documents, and newspapers to describe historic
tsunamis. Dudley then links the information found through historical research to the
science behind the phenomenon demonstrating how “scientists try to learn something
from every tsunami,” even historic ones.9 Historians have something to learn from the
scientists as well. A rudimentary understanding of the science helps historians, read the
historical development of the built environment in disaster prone areas. The development
of the city of Hilo is a prime example. By analyzing historic evidence of past tsunamis,
along with contemporary evidence after the 1960 tsunami, scientists found that the shape
and alignment of Hilo Bay causes tsunamis originating from certain locations to inundate
parts of the city. The scientists discovered that there is little the city can do to prevent
future destruction in those areas. This knowledge provides some of the context for why
Dean, “San Francisco Earthquake,” 501; Segall, “New Insights,” 122.
Walter C. Dudley and Min Lee, Tsunami! 2nd Edition (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998), 24950.
8
9
21
the city chose never to develop (or re-develop) some coastal areas after the 1960 tsunami.
History provides the rest of the explanation. Tsunamis destroyed the now undeveloped
areas in 1946 and 1960, so the city chose to learn from that history and turn those areas
into parks. Science here, and in “nonspecialists” Dudley and Lee’s book, informs history,
and vice versa.
Articles by “nonspecialists” populate The Resilient City, one more example of
the interdisciplinary nature of disaster studies and the importance of the examination of
the many angles of the disaster narrative. The events of September 11, 2001 inspired two
urban studies professors at MIT, Lawrence J. Vale and Thomas J. Campanella, to conduct
a yearlong colloquium that explored how cities recover from disaster. The colloquium
resulted in this book. Though most of the essays focus on recovery from man-made
disasters (wars, bombs, etc.), two of the articles make particularly important contributions
to the natural disaster narrative with their unique exploration of the power and symbolic
meaning of space and the built environment. This intellectual foray again demonstrates
how varied disciplines bring new insights. Beatrice Chen explores the rebuilding of the
Chinese city of Tangshan after a 7.8 earthquake in 1976. Chen describes how the Chinese
government closed the city off to outsiders and tightly controlled the rebuilding effort in
order to keep the perceptions of recovery rosy. Here the built environment served as both
a symbol of government control and economic recovery. Similarly, in Mexico City after a
1985 earthquake, the damaged built environment of the downtown served as a symbol of
the city and its institutions overall. Diane Davis explores the contention over the
rebuilding of this area in her article. Davis writes that the conflicts over the
22
reconstruction plans were “…very much struggles over the city itself: its meaning and the
institutions and practices that were to give it life form and character.” Davis argues that
the debate over the form of the built environment revealed the city’s political and social
make-up, an interesting insight into disaster recovery that reappears in other authors’
works. Chen and Davis’ perspectives inform later readings of other disasters. The
rebuilding actions of government and elites and struggles over the form of the rebuilt
cities after American disasters were largely the same, and thus can be interpreted using
the same lens.10
Historians help focus that lens. Though they are members of a larger, broader
disaster studies community, historians still have an important role to play in the study of
calamity. Despite his appreciation for the work of others, Burnham acknowledges the
need for historians to enter the field. In regards to a disaster seminar he conducted,
Burnham writes:
…the historical perspective added still more, and the work of the seminar showed
that the perspective of time and the understanding of institutional development
that historians bring adds to the subject…viewing human institutions under the
10
Thomas J. Campanella and Lawrence J. Vale, eds., The Resilient City (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005), 5, 9; Beatrice Chen, “Resist the Earthquake and Rescue Ourselves: The Reconstruction of
Tangshan after the 1976 Earthquake,” in The Resilient City, eds. Thomas J. Campanella and Lawrence J.
Vale (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 235-253; Diane Davis, “Reverberations: Mexico City’s
1985 Earthquake and the Transformation of the Capital,” in The Resilient City, eds. Thomas J. Campanella
and Lawrence J. Vale (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 260-261. Professor Davis could be the
utmost example of the blurring of the line between disciplines: she is a political scientist/sociologist
working in an urban studies and planning department.
23
stress of a natural disaster provides a test of those institutions that would
otherwise be unobtainable from the past.11
Like Chen, Davis, and subsequent authors, Burnham sees the value of using a calamitous
period as a laboratory for examining ordinary institutions and interactions. Multiple
historical perspectives add even more to the subject by studying different institutions and
relations. Narrative, political, Marxist, and most prolifically environmental historians,
have all answered the call to study disasters. Each specialist’s approach highlights
different aspects of calamitous events, and much like the reading of multiple disciplines,
the reading of multiple historical approaches breeds a greater understanding of the
disaster narrative.
James L. Penick uses a narrative approach in his 1981 book, The New Madrid
Earthquakes. He examines a lesser-known incident, the series of major and minor
earthquakes that struck the Midwest over several months in the winter of 1811-1812.
Burnham calls this book a “pioneer scholarly study of a disaster in the United States.”12
Burnham’s assignment of the term “pioneer” to this study is both accurate and indicative
of the dearth of available disaster histories at the time. Penick’s work is pioneering in that
it is one of the first academic books by a historian on an American disaster. He also
innovates by bringing in environmental themes with his description of the changes the
earthquakes wrought on the landscape and the Mississippi River. Penick’s monograph
reads as incomplete though because he does not completely examine or develop these
11
12
Burnham, 3-4.
Burnham, 2.
24
themes or the earthquake narrative. That Burnham and others consider this a watershed
book for the field of disaster history demonstrates the lack of fully developed historical
disaster narratives available at the time. Penick admirably tries to reconstruct a cohesive
story of the quakes from very limited sources, but he does not succeed. He recounts the
earthquake experiences of different communities, but either begins the community’s
narrative without completing it, or offers only a town’s or person’s earthquake experience
without much context. This leaves the reader wondering how the story ends or where it
came from in the first place. Penick argues that there is just not enough source
information to produce a more complete picture.13 If that is the case, an article utilizing
only the most complete sources, not a highly speculative book, would have been a more
appropriate venue for an exploration of the New Madrid earthquakes. In an article,
Penick could have tackled only the most complete narratives instead of trying to spread
the small amount of earthquake information extremely thin over an entire book. Despite
the book’s shortfalls, Penick still opens the door for later historians to delve deeper into
disasters.
An article is the perfect place for historian Charles Wollenberg to discuss the
1868 Hayward earthquake. Wollenberg argues that the 1868 earthquake “helped form
important attitudes and practices that still characterize life on the Bay Area seismic
frontier” and he is absolutely correct. Wollenberg uses newspaper coverage,
correspondence, and government documents to present a narrative that plays like a
13
James L. Penick, The New Madrid Earthquakes (Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 1981),
xiv.
25
prequel to the greater and better-known 1906 San Francisco earthquake. He highlights the
heavy damage to poorly constructed buildings and structures built on made land in San
Francisco, the attempts on the part of the elite to gloss over the destruction, the denial and
ignorance of the potential for future quakes, and the extensive earthquake investigation
report that simply “disappeared.” All of these things happen again in 1906, and with the
exception of the lost report, to some degree in 1989. They likely will happen again as
cities continue to build on fill and allow property owners to push retrofits further and
further into the future, banking on those forecasts that predict that the next earthquake is
thirty years away. 14
Both Penick and Wollenberg make valuable contributions to disaster studies by
sharing their perspective that lesser-known events deserve study and offer important
lessons. Penick points out that though Californians may not be properly prepared for an
earthquake, at least they acknowledge that earthquakes occur where they live. People in
the Mississippi Valley do not, though the potential for an earthquake is there. Penick
hopes his work will raise awareness about the earthquake danger in the Midwest.
Wollenberg feels similarly about the Hayward fault. With all the attention lavished on the
infamous San Andres fault, Californians regularly ignore the equally dangerous Hayward
fault and the lessons of past earthquakes. Wollenberg, like Penick, hopes that people can
learn from their mistakes.15
Charles Wollenberg, “Life on the Seismic Frontier: The Great San Francisco Earthquake (Of 1868),”
California History 71, no. 4 (Winter 1992/1993), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25161625, 498-500, 502, 507.
15
Penick, The New Madrid Earthquakes, xi; Wollenberg, “Life on the Seismic Frontier,” 507, 509.
14
26
Environmental historians Mike Davis, Ted Steinberg, and Stephen J. Pyne hope
for lessons to be learned, but conclude instead that people have not learned from their
mistakes, and have only moved on to making bigger ones. Newspapers after the 1868
earthquake attributed the damage to human error, arguing, “…that the injuries were
caused by the ‘disregard of conditions of safety’ which in the future would be considered
‘wanton and criminal.’”16 Davis, Steinberg and Pyne, through their analyses of human
interaction with the environment, agree that human folly causes the most death and
destruction. They contend though that almost 150 years after the 1868 earthquake, the
future where man considers the “disregard of the conditions of safety,” “wanton and
criminal” has yet to arrive. Instead, people continue to make the same mistakes that
caused a great deal of damage in previous disasters. People, not nature, Davis, Steinberg,
and Pyne unapologetically argue, are to blame for the disasters. They maintain that socalled “natural” disasters do not kill people, humans’ blatant disregard of natural forces,
manipulation of the environment, greed, and poor development choices cause the injury
normally attributed to “natural” disasters.
Davis set the tone for this type of examination in 1998 with Ecology of Fear: Los
Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. Davis traces both real and imagined disasters in
Los Angeles from fires and killer bees to Blade Runner. Davis convincingly argues that
much as Angelinos try to blame a villainous nature for their frequent disasters, Los
Angeles “…has deliberately put itself in harm’s way” through greed, bad regional
planning and a lack of a “responsible land ethic.” Davis writes with a clear passion for
16
San Francisco Bulletin, as quoted in Wollenberg, “Life on the Seismic Frontier,” 502.
27
the subject and a deep understanding of the area, which makes his argument all the more
effective. Davis begins by describing Los Angeles’ “Mediterranean climate” which
normally conjures visions of sun-drenched villas and olive trees. Davis instead details an
environment born from and dependent on “high-intensity, low frequency events” such as
fires, floods, droughts and earthquakes.17 The Spanish, familiar with this type of
ecosystem, avoided the dangerous arroyos, floodplains, and hillsides. American settlers,
accustomed to exactly the opposite environmental pattern in the East, saw these perfectly
normal events as aberrant manifestations of a dastardly environment, and built (and still
build) in the dangerous areas anyway. This, Davis argues, is the reason for most of Los
Angeles’ “natural” disasters. Davis’ point is (pardon the pun) earth shattering since the
cultural norm is still to consider these events unusual and the destruction out of human
control. When considered in light of the well-documented evidence he presents though,
Davis’ point makes unqualified sense. Davis shows that as the city grew, greedy
developers, politicians, and individual citizens ignored earlier fires in Malibu, floods
along the river, animal encounters and even tornadoes and allowed development to
invade the environment anyway.18 As the buffer between urban and wild land eroded, and
people moved into more and more dangerous areas, fires did more property damage,
mountain lions ate more pets and tornadoes tore through neighborhoods. Davis blames
17
Mike Davis, Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster (New York: Vintage Books,
1998), 9, 10.
18
Seriously, tornadoes. As unbelievable as it sounds, Davis uses newspaper accounts and National Weather
Service data to prove that Los Angeles is actually a fairly active tornado region. Davis shows that the last
few decades have been unusually calm, leading to an even greater sense of complacency and ignorance.
The chapter is appropriately titled “Our Secret Kansas,” 147-194. As for Malibu, Davis initially covered
the subject in his 1995 article, “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn.” Mike Davis, “The Case for Letting
Malibu Burn,” Environmental History Review 19 (Summer 1995): 1-36.
28
the destruction on Angelinos who deny the possibility of disaster and rebuild again and
again after multiple calamities. He also faults both the local and Federal governments for
allowing development and redevelopment in the same dangerous areas and his evidence
shows that he is absolutely correct in his assignment of culpability.
Ted Steinberg applies Davis’ indictment to the nation in Acts of God: The
Unnatural History of Disaster in America. Like Davis, Steinberg’s passion and tone add
to his argument. Steinberg writes that, “this book is openly argumentative. It eschews the
calm, even tone…that has come to typify much historical writing.” Steinberg is upset,
and by the end of the book, Steinberg has the reader also upset, and looking at
development and government disaster relief (or subsidization as Steinberg says) in a
whole new way. Steinberg argues that government and elites, and through them
everyday citizens, choose to view disasters as elements of an uncontrollable nature in
order to excuse poor building practices, development choices, and “disaster” responses.
Steinberg begins with a discussion of the rationalization of earthquake disasters as freak,
natural occurrences in 1886 Charleston and multiple times in California. By normalizing
the threat, government and developers justified more development. Steinberg then takes
his argument to Florida, which he says, “…like California, was not born risky. It was
built that way.” Steinberg shows through documentary evidence and ecological analysis
how human manipulations of nature created hurricane disasters. As people built closer to
the water, removed protective vegetation, and filled in marshes, “disaster” casualties
increased.
29
Steinberg is most effective though in later chapters as he blasts the Federal
government for subsidizing disaster through building programs, disaster relief, and the
evisceration of legislation designed to prevent disasters. Steinberg shows how the Federal
government created (and still creates future) disasters by building highways, levees, and
water systems that eliminated natural buffer zones and allowed people to live in
dangerous areas. Most frustratingly, when disaster inevitably strikes these areas, Federal
relief allows rebuilding in the exact same stupid spot. The poor, Steinberg argues, are
afforded the least attention and protection while being pushed into the most dangerous
areas. Steinberg details how powerful mobile home manufacturers pressured the
government to lessen the standards for mobile home construction, while at the same time,
under funding of the National Weather Service meant that many areas did not have
adequate storm warnings. This is outrageous. Steinberg makes clear that a little less
greed, a little more money and an acceptance of human culpability for disaster before the
winds begin to blow would save money and lives in the future.19
Fire historian Stephen Pyne agrees heartily with Davis and Steinberg’s approach
and indictment of humanity. Pyne blames humans for so-called “wild” fires and for the
destruction wrought by these fires. In a series of articles, Pyne discusses the development
of the nation’s policy of complete fire suppression instead of more ecologically friendly
fire management. Pyne shows how the imperial quelling of native peoples’ traditional
prescriptive burn practices led to a massive build-up of vegetation that fueled huge
19
Ted Steinberg, Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Disaster in America, 2 nd Edition (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2006), xiv – xxii, 47, 85, 81, 98, 91, 149.
30
Western fires in 1910. These fires set the stage for the perception of “…the firefight as
battlefield, the fire crew as warriors” that makes it difficult to question fire suppression
policy, since “…to question public policy [is] to question the sacrifices of the dead.”
Pyne argues that because of this policy, and because of the “uncontained growth of our
increasingly far-flung suburbs,” the occasional “explosion” of fires should not surprise
people. Pyne’s use of incendiary language like “imperial,” and “explosion,” heralds a call
for the re-examination of fire policy, and his examination of the issues, brings attention to
one more type of “disaster.”20
Ari Kelman takes a less drastic and argumentative approach than Davis,
Steinberg, and Pyne but incorporates the some of the same environmental themes as he
examines New Orleans’ relationship with the Mississippi River. Kelman agrees with the
others that humans continue to mislabel disasters as strictly natural, but he argues,
“humans are not the sole authors of landscape.” Kelman believes that writers like Mike
Davis “do not fully account for the tangled histories of urban spaces.” Kelman then,
attempts to reconstruct the history of New Orleans’ waterfront as an urban space and tries
to show that both nature and man, not just man, played a role in the development of that
space. Employing much the same perspective as Chen and Diane Davis assume in The
Resilient City, Kelman examines the significance of the waterfront as a public space and
the meaning of the built environment around it. Kelman concludes that the river and city
define each other and believes that “New Orleans, however accident prone it might be,
Stephen J. Pyne, “Wildlands: The Firefight,” Whole Earth (Winter 1999): 59-60; Stephen J. Pyne,
“Flame and Fortune,” New Republic (August 8, 1994): 19, 20; Stephen J. Pyne, “The Fires, This Time, and
Next,” Science 294 (2001): 1006.
20
31
makes better sense when place in historical perspective” and that the city should rebuild.
In comparison to the others though, Kelman’s use of what Steinberg calls a more “…dull
and impersonal prose” makes Kelman’s argument less effective. Kelman also detracts
from his own contention that man is not completely responsible for disasters with his
chapter on the 1927 flood. Here he discusses how New Orleans increased the probability
of a catastrophic flood by draining the buffering back swamp, and how New Orleanians
destroyed a good deal of the countryside to save themselves by dynamiting a downstream
levee. No matter how much it rained, nature could not have devastated the countryside as
much as New Orleans did. 21
Though environmental historians maintain somewhat of a monopoly on the
disaster market, political, Marxist, and cultural historians still tackle the subject with their
unique approaches. These historians add to the understanding of disaster by looking at
different aspects of disaster narratives that environmental historians only examine briefly,
or not at all. In their book, Galveston and the 1900 Storm, Patricia Bixel and Elizabeth
Turner examine the political and social changes in Galveston, Texas after a destructive
hurricane in 1900. Christine Meisner Rosen discusses similar changes in her article on the
fire that destroyed much of downtown Baltimore in 1904. In both cases, the Progressive
business elite successfully used the disaster and recovery as an opportunity to reform city
governments. Rosen argues that in Baltimore, this was a good thing because the city
made important improvements like widening streets and installing sewers in the burned
21
Ari Kelman, A River and Its City: The Nature of Landscape in New Orleans, paperback edition
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 11, 12, xiv,xii; Steinberg, Acts of God, xiv.
32
district. The expense of these improvements to the business leaders, Rosen maintains,
proves that elite reformers did not just have themselves in mind. Rosen’s even-handed
approach to elite involvement in recovery is refreshing since likely not all elite reformers
were simply selfish Scrooges as they are often portrayed. Bixel does not portray the
reform quite so rosily. She shows that in Galveston, the elite-fueled switch to a
commission form of government came at a social and political price for AfricanAmericans in the community. As ghoulish stories of blacks chewing jewelry off of
corpses and other equally outrageous suspicions surfaced, white leaders decided that they
could not trust blacks, and excluded them from the new form of government. Though
they do not come to exactly the same conclusion, Bixel and Rosen both examine an
important facet of disaster narratives: massive changes in the political cultures of these
places brought on by disasters. Their perspectives prove that the environmental angle is
not the only side of disasters worth studying.22
Marxist historian Karen Sawislak studies class and social relations during and
after a disaster, yet another aspect of the disaster narrative, with her analysis of the Great
Chicago Fire of 1871. Sawislak contends that the disaster offers an excellent opportunity
to analyze “ordinary social, cultural, economic and political relations” because the
disaster sparked debates that forced people to reveal their values and perspectives. She
22
Patricia Bixel and Elizabeth Turner, Galveston and the 1900 Storm: Catastrophe and Catalyst (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2000); Christine Meisner Rosen, “Business, Democracy, and Progressive
Reform in the Redevelopment of Baltimore after the Great Fire of 1904,” The Business History Review 63
(Summer 1989): 283-328. The ghoul story surfaces in the accounts of just about every disaster. All that
changes from one disaster to another is the suspected minority. Whichever group that particular city hates
the most – African-Americans in the South, the Chinese in San Francisco, etc. – is inevitably accused of
ghoulishness.
33
argues that these debates show that class was the factor that determined individuals
“destiny before the flames.” Sawislak is most effective in demonstrating this point with
her chapter on the distribution of disaster relief. She describes how, like in Galveston,
San Francisco, and Baltimore, fears of government corruption caused elites to seize the
relief reins and disburse relief according to their values. The elite believed that indolence
was the main cause of poverty and so were stingy with relief funds, fearing the
development of a “dependent class.” Instead, the elite preferred to focus on providing
help to the bourgeois. The elite reasoned that the middle-classes were accustomed to
working harder, and therefore to a higher level of living. This, the elite thought, entitled
the middle-classes to more relief. So, while the elite sheltered in their second homes, the
middle-class received the necessary assistance to start over, while the poor became even
poorer without the relief needed to recoup what little they had. By thoroughly explaining
the relief agency’s reasoning, the difficulty of the relief application and process, and
resultant fortune or famine, Sawislak coherently demonstrates how class defined the
disaster experience in Chicago. By doing this, her work informs other disaster studies.
These other studies may not cover class to the extent that Sawislak does, but the reading
of her work helps the historian pick up clues in other works to determine what defined the
disaster experience for individuals and how class played into the disaster drama.23
Like Sawislak, Harvard cultural historian Steven Biel believes that disaster
studies tell a great deal about the normal workings of society, but instead of focusing on
23
Karen Sawislak, Chicagoans and the Great Fire, 1871-1874, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1995), 6, 37, 81, 93, 100, 102.
34
class, Biel and the contributors to American Disasters, explore the cultural meanings of
disasters. The best chapter in the book is undoubtedly Carl Smith’s “Faith and Doubt:
The Imaginative Dimensions of the Great Chicago Fire.” Smith examines the language
and images used in the post-fire novels, magazine articles, songs, and other forms of
literature. Smith argues that these cultural artifacts preached the city and the post-Civil
War nation’s, spiritual and physical renewal. The depiction of angels pulling the city
from the flames and the frequent use of the word “rise” put an optimistic, spiritual spin
on the city’s recovery. The outpouring of support from the nation, contemporary writers
said, demonstrated the reunification of America, and that despite their differences,
Americans were the most generous people on the planet. Smith also examines lesser
known, darker stories of rampant drinking, rapes, and crime. Smith’s interpretation that
the literature portrayed a “…valiant community of citizens who in the worst of times
discovered the best in themselves” while ignoring the more negative things that happened
sounds hauntingly familiar, like any number of modern sound-bites on CNN. Smith’s
analysis shows how the heroic cultural interpretation of disaster and recovery forms and
persists.24
Philip Fradkin demonstrates just how many elements of disasters there are, and
uses a number of perspectives to study them. Fradkin brings environmental, Marxist,
cultural, and political themes together in The Great Earthquake and Fires of 1906: How
San Francisco Nearly Destroyed Itself. Fradkin’s striking work carries environmental
24
Steven Biel, ed. American Disasters (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 4-5; Carl Smith,
“Faith and Doubt: The Imaginative Dimensions of the Great Chicago Fire,” in American Disasters, ed.
Steven Biel (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 140-142, 136.
35
tones reminiscent of Davis and Steinberg with his obvious disdain for the city’s
development choices and building practices, then and now. Fradkin writes, “hubris makes
us think we can escape disasters, but we can’t, because we are responsible for them...by
building flimsy structures and living in dangerous places.” Fradkin does not confine
himself to an environmental perspective though. He uses a Marxist perspective to analyze
the poor treatment of the Chinese, the elite controlled distribution of relief only to the
“worthy”, the fears of creating a “pauper class,” and the blame placed on a member of the
villainous lower classes for starting one of the many fires.25 Like Rosen and Bixel, he
also studies the business elite’s take-over of the municipal government and the battles
over political power in the city. Fradkin also interprets the cultural dimensions of the
disaster by analyzing the words of preachers, boosters, and poets alike.26
Fradkin brings this study full-circle because his work demonstrates the benefit of
the multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted historical approach to disaster. Fradkin presents the
most complete disaster narrative because of his analysis of the many aspects of the huge
event that is defined as the “natural disaster to end all natural disasters.”27 This
demonstrates the usefulness of the multi-faceted study of disaster. Fradkin also serves as
an example of how students of disciplines other than history still add to disasters’
Much like Chicago blamed and vilified Mrs. O’Leary for starting the 1871, San Franciscans blamed a
lower class, likely immigrant woman for starting the “Ham and Eggs Fire” so named because the fire
apparently stemmed from the stove of a woman trying to make breakfast. Richard F. Bales demonstrates in
his article, “Did the Cow Do It? A New Look at the Cause of Great Chicago Fire” that no, the cow did not
do it, and that Mrs. O’Leary was unfairly victimized. See Richard F. Bales, “Did the Cow Do It? A New
Look at the Cause of the Great Chicago Fire,” Illinois Historical Journal 90 (1997), 2-24.
26
Philip L. Fradkin, The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906 (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2006), xii, 79, 118, 208, 215, 222, 171, 213.
27
Ted Steinberg, “Smoke and Mirrors: The San Francisco Earthquake and Seismic Denial,” in American
Disasters, ed. Steven Biel (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 104. At more than 400 pages,
Fradkin’s book is also the longest, by far, of any studied here.
25
36
historical narratives. Though he uses historical approaches often employed by academic
historians to study the history of a disaster, Fradkin is not an academic historian. He does
not have a Ph.D. in history and he worked for much of his life as a journalist.28 This
benefits the book though because his journalistic training results in short chapters, and
clear, concise writing that easily gets his points across.
Fradkin, and the other authors studied here, demonstrate that historians learn
much from members of other disciplines and from each other. When disciplines and
perspectives overlap, they provide the most complete pictures of individual disasters and
the disaster history overall. The authors studied here often cite and discuss each other.
The environmental history perspective offered by Davis and Steinberg informs the
political or cultural history perspectives of Bixel and Biel, and vice versa. Scientists and
engineers study history to track trends important to current research and modern public
safety. The list goes on, because nowhere is every high school history teacher’s favorite
adage – that we study history to prevent the negative things from happening again – more
true than in the case of disaster studies. Only by examining the many aspects of disasters
can we hope to understand and prevent them.
28
Philip L. Fradkin, “Biography,” http://www.philipfradkin.com. Accessed December 7, 2009.
37
Chapter 3
THE PHOENIX RISES. AGAIN, AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN
If starting over is one of your things, if the phoenix bird is one that you like, Santa
Cruz is the perfect place. Be here. Stay here, because you always get a chance to
say, “well we gotta do it again…”1
The natural setting and environmental history of the region profoundly shaped the
city of Santa Cruz’s social, economic, cultural and geographical history. The area’s
abundant natural resources and striking physical beauty drew missionaries, forty-niners,
industrialists, tourists, and finally academics. Each group left its mark on the city’s
natural and cultural landscape through their infrastructure, buildings, and attempts to
control and exploit nature. Nature though, has a tremendous penchant for resisting those
efforts and foiling every troop of settlers’ best-laid plans. Fires, floods, earthquakes,
storms and heavy seas have all molded the development of the built and natural
environments and caused people to truly pay the price for living in “paradise.”
The area’s natural setting made (and still makes) Santa Cruz a paradise for the
successive groups who have all called the region home. Santa Cruz sits on the northern
edge of the Monterey Bay, surrounded on three sides by mountains and coastal hills, and
the Pacific Ocean on the fourth. The San Lorenzo River courses southward from the
mountains to the ocean, dropping 2900 feet in elevation over its twenty-two mile length.2
It bisects the current city into the West and East Sides, and historically separated the
mission settlement from the civilian pueblo Branciforte. Numerous creeks throughout the
Sandy Lydon, “Loma Prieta Earthquake 20th Anniversary” (lecture, Museum of Art and History, Santa
Cruz, CA, October 14, 2009).
2
Daniel McMahon, “Floods and Flood Control on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz,” Santa
Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/297.
1
38
mountains stream into the river, feeding its flow, especially during periods of heavy rain.
The coastline alternates between shallow, sandy beaches perfect for wading and
crumbling sandstone cliffs that offer scenic vistas of the wildlife rich Monterey Bay. The
mountains that loom above the coast were at one time covered in old growth forests,
while today mostly second-generation trees blanket the hills. These same mountains and
hills also offer rich deposits of limestone, which when burned in kilns, becomes lime, a
vital ingredient in mortar and plaster. Taken together, the mountains, coast and river are
an appealing combination. These natural resources historically drew people interested in
exploiting them to the area. The mountains provided the resources in the form of trees
and limestone, and the river and ocean offered the means to transport them. The river and
the ocean also supplied resources of their own in the form of water, power, fish and
picturesque scenery.
Life in Santa Cruz was not all-economic development and carriage rides on the
beach though. Disaster is a very common theme constant throughout Santa Cruz’s
history. The same environmental elements that made Santa Cruz a prime target for
resource exploitation make the city equally susceptible to disaster. Water and mud from
the 138 square miles that the river and its related creeks drain have a tendency to flood
the city of Santa Cruz and bring landslides crashing through mountain communities.3 The
river’s loose alluvial soil on which much of the downtown and beachfront are built makes
these areas particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage. The same waves that provide
surfers with world-class breaks also erode cliffs, taking roads and homes into the ocean.
3
McMahon, “Flood Control.”
39
The mountains that provided the timber and limestone that fueled the city’s growth also
isolate the community, making communication and transportation difficult during storms
and after earthquakes. In Santa Cruz, natural abundance is inextricably linked to natural
disaster.
Native Americans were the first residents to benefit from Santa Cruz’s natural
bounty. The people, known as Ohlone, were not one coherent tribe, but many small
groups, each with its own leader and territory. These mini-tribes were sometimes loosely
affiliated through inter-marriage, trade, and similarities in language and customs. All of
the Ohlone though took full advantage of the ample resources available to them: fishing
for salmon and steelhead in the San Lorenzo River; hunting deer and other big game in
the surrounding mountains; tapping the Pacific for shellfish, otters, and seals; and
gathering berries, acorns, nuts and other plant foods.4
The Spanish also saw great potential in Santa Cruz with its temperate climate, rich
soils, bay access, supply of fresh water, and beautiful landscape. The members of the
Portola expedition were the first white men to see the area. They reached the San Lorenzo
River on – ironically enough – October 17, 1769. Shortly after the Portola party passed
through the area, another scouting expedition evaluated the region’s potential as a
mission site. Father Francisco Palou enthusiastically supported placing a mission in Santa
Cruz. “This site is fitted not merely for a town but for a city. Nothing is lacking to it. It
has good soil, water, pasture, firewood and timber, all at hand in abundance,” Palou
Robert Cartier, “An Overview of Ohlone Culture,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/248.
4
40
wrote in 1774. Nearly twenty years later, in 1791, Father Fermin Lasuen officially
established Mission Santa Cruz on the banks of the San Lorenzo River.5
The mission seemed to be doomed from the start. The original settlement proved
to be too close to the river and subject to frequent flooding, so the padres moved the
mission to higher ground. The new complex on Mission Hill, completed in 1794, did not
fare much better though. Heavy rains damaged the mission structures in 1796, 1797, and
1799, and the related high water washed out the mission’s crops on the lowlands (the site
of today’s downtown and surrounding neighborhoods).6 In the face of all this stormcaused strife and harsh treatment from the padres, the neophytes deserted the mission in
droves, so much so that by the time heavy rains again damaged the mission structures in
1824, hardly any laborers were left to make repairs.7 Nature dealt the final blow to the
original mission chapel in 1840 and 1857 when earthquakes, in concert with inclement
weather, brought down first the chapel’s tower, then some of the walls. These
earthquakes and storms, coupled with thefts and the murder of a padre in October 1812,
made Mission Santa Cruz one of the least successful of the missions.8
The Villa de Branciforte, a pueblo established in 1797 on the east side of the San
Lorenzo River, added to the mission padres’ problems.9 The Villa was one of several
civilian settlements, including San Jose and Los Angeles, that the Spanish established to
5
Leon Rowland, Santa Cruz: The Early Years (Santa Cruz: Paper Vision Press, 1980), 95, 97
Daniel McMahon, “The History of Floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz,” Santa
Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/289.
7
John Chase, The Sidewalk Companion to Santa Cruz Architecture, 3 rd Edition (Santa Cruz: The Museum
of Art and History, 2005), 98.
8
Rowland, Early Years, 17-18.
9
Phil Reader, “Timeline for the Establishment of the Pueblo de Branciforte,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/250.
6
41
encourage civilian settlement and to gain a greater foothold in Alta California in case of
foreign attack. Like the mission, Branciforte proved to be far less successful than its
northern and southern counterparts. The reasons why Branciforte achieved limited
success are the subject of some debate. Historians disagree on the nature of the settlers
and how the settlers’ characters impacted the initial success of the settlement. Some
historians maintain that the settlers were shifty former criminals uninterested in being
farmers, while other historians argue that the Brancifortians were simply retired soldiers
and artisans unprepared to be farmers. The reality likely lies somewhere in the middle,
but either way, lack of promised government support and adequate supplies played a
huge role in the early failure of the settlement.10
The settlers’ turbulent relationship with the mission also complicated matters. The
mission priests constantly complained about the Brancifortians’ offenses. When
Argentine pirate Hypolito Bouchard arrived in Monterey in 1818, Santa Cruz mission
priests retreated to Santa Clara for safety. Upon their return, the padres found that the
mission had been plundered, not by the pirates, but by the Brancifortians. Much to the
padres’ dismay, when the missions secularized in 1834, the mission lands went to
Branciforte and the mission padres found themselves only parish priests. By this time,
Branciforte was flourishing as the town center for the number of surrounding ranchos and
their growing population of Californios. This success was short-lived however. With the
secession of California to the United States in 1848, newly powerful Americans began to
10
Susan Lehmann, Historic Context Statement for the City of Santa Cruz, prepared for the City of Santa
Cruz Planning and Community Development Department, Oct. 20, 2000, 5.
42
break up the ranchos. As the Californios lost their lands, and as Americans focused their
attention on the hills and flatlands west of the river, Branciforte’s importance
diminished.11
Small numbers of Americans and other foreigners established themselves in Santa
Cruz during the Spanish and Mexican periods, but it was not until the Gold Rush that the
Yankees arrived in droves. These newcomers quickly realized that the area’s abundant
natural resources lent themselves well to a variety of industries including logging, lime
production, and leather making. The river in particular drew early industrialists because
of its reliable, year-round, falling-water stream capable of powering machinery.12 By
1867, the county was producing tens of thousands of barrels of lime, and had seven
tanneries, twenty-two lumber mills, two powder works, two paper mills, and eight grist
mills.13 Many of these industries though were inherently dangerous and both progress and
destruction mark their histories. The river proved itself to be industry’s pest as much as it
was its partner.
Isaac Graham set up the first water powered sawmill in 1840, three miles north of
town on the fast-moving San Lorenzo River. Other mills and logging camps soon
followed, taking advantage of the river’s swift current and the area’s vast stands of
redwood forest. In the 1860s and 70s, logging was the region’s number one industry,
feeding booming (and frequently burning) San Francisco’s need for lumber. Mills were
profitable but risky ventures. Loggers built the mills on creeks and the river, often in deep
11
Rowland, Early Years,11; Lehmann, Context, 5-6.
Lydon, “Loma Prieta 20th Anniversary.”
13
Margaret Koch, Santa Cruz County: Parade of the Past, rev. ed. (1973; repr. Santa Cruz: Western
Tanager Press/Valley Publishers, 1991), 33.
12
43
ravines, so the mills and camps were subject to regular flooding, if not outright
washout.14 The storms of 1861-62 alone destroyed multiple mills and logging camps.
Landslides also posed a danger to loggers. The 1906 earthquake caused a massive
landslide on Hinkley Creek that filled the ravine where a logging operation ran, burying
nine men and a dog as they slept in their bunkhouses.15
In addition to lumber, Santa Cruz County supplied lime to the West’s booming
construction industry, another essential building material used in mortar, bricks, plaster,
and stucco.16 The making of lime required limestone and a readily available supply of
timber. Lime makers needed a vast amount of timber, both to fire the kilns that turn
limestone into lime and to make barrels to transport the finished product. Engineers
Albion Jordan and Isaac Davis were among the first to discover that Santa Cruz offered
an enormous supply of both lime-making essentials. They established their operation at
Bay and High Streets in 1853. The company employed huge numbers of people:
quarrymen, loggers, workers to fire the kilns, coopers, teamsters, cooks, and sea captains
to pilot the company steamships, among countless others. Jordan sold out to Henry
Cowell in 1863, and the company became Davis and Cowell.17 At the industry’s peak in
the 1880s, Davis and Cowell, along with several other county producers, supplied half the
Stephen Michael Payne, “Felling the Giants,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/85.
15
Koch, Parade, 160.
16
These are the very same materials that proved so vulnerable to earthquakes in 1906 and 1989. Indeed,
many of the bricks that fell in San Francisco in 1906 probably came from Santa Cruz.
17
Koch, Parade, 38. After Isaac Davis died in 1888, Henry Cowell purchased his share of the company and
it became the Cowell Lime and Cement Company.
14
44
lime in the state.18 Since most lime producers operated their businesses far from the river,
they were less vulnerable to flooding than other industries, but disaster in the form of fire
was a constant threat. Producers worked with exceedingly high temperatures, and one
misplaced chunk of limestone in the kiln could at best, ruin the entire load, and at worst,
cause a devastating fire.
Other industries attracted by the abundance of timber and waterpower faced the
dual threat of flood and fire. In 1860, Henry Van Valkenburgh established a paper mill
just north of Santa Cruz on the river, hoping to capitalize on the West’s paper shortage.
The venture, and Van Valkenburgh himself, did not last long. Massive floods in 1860-61
and again 1861-62 severely damaged the mill. While inspecting the damage, Van
Valkenburgh died when struck by a falling tree. The new owners repaired the mill, only
to see a large part of it go up in smoke in 1867. After the death of the paper mill’s third
owner, the neighboring California Powder Works bought the property in 1871. The
California Powder Works had been established alongside the paper mill in 1864 to
manufacture black powder and other explosives for use in the construction of the
transcontinental railroad, in mining, and military weapons. Like the paper mill, the
Powder Works was subject to flooding. Industrial accidents were also common, but
expected. Powder Works planners designed the Works’ buildings with weak roofs or one
weak wall to channel the force of the inevitable explosions that sometimes rocked the
whole city and left mangled workers (and pieces of workers) hanging from trees.
Tanneries were also big business on the river, and though plagued by floods too, disaster
18
Lehmann, Context, 10.
45
actually proved to be boon to the industry in Santa Cruz. Large fires in 1870 wiped out
the supply of tan oak trees used by tanners in other parts of northern California and
allowed Santa Cruz tanners to fill the market’s demand for leather products. Soon, Santa
Cruz tanneries were known for both the quantity and quality of their goods.19
Santa Cruz’s natural isolation made transporting the goods produced by all the
county’s industries difficult. A series of grueling roads emerged to bring the county’s
products through the rough terrain either over the mountains to the Santa Clara Valley or
to the bay where companies built wharves to load their goods onto ships. Like it resisted
industrial production, nature also fought product transportation. Floods and landslides
made travel on many routes nearly impossible during winter months. The arrival of the
railroads beginning in the 1870s remedied the situation to a point, but the railroads still
were not immune to the same problems that befell the roads. Damage caused by flooding
and landslides forced many small railroad lines to sell out to the Southern Pacific, which
suffered setbacks itself. The 1906 earthquake stalled even the great Octopus with the
destruction of several tunnels and the mangling of miles of track that took three years to
repair. After this experience, the railroad halted future construction in the area.20
For heavy industry in Santa Cruz, not much future remained in 1906 anyway.
Lack of resources, coupled with the development of new, cheaper products and new
technology less dependent on waterpower, made isolated Santa Cruz County increasingly
less attractive to industrialists. Intense exploitation by the myriad Santa Cruz industries
19
20
Koch, Parade, 42-43; Lehmann, Context, 11.
Lehmann, Context, 24-26; Lydon, “Loma Prieta 20th Anniversary.”
46
largely tapped out the forests by the 1920s. Industrialists experimented briefly with
importing the necessary fuel and supplies, but this proved to be uneconomical compared
to relocation. Steam and electric powered engines allowed industries to operate
anywhere, closer to supplies, shipping lines and larger labor pools. Lumber mills closed
or moved farther and farther from the city of Santa Cruz when there were no more trees
to cut. Tanneries closed as the tan oaks vital to the tanning process disappeared. Henry
Cowell’s heirs shuttered the limekilns in 1925 as cheap fuel became scarce and as the
recently developed cement gained popularity as a cheaper alternative to traditional lime
products.21 The California Powder Works suffered a similar fate. The development of
more powerful nitroglycerin based dynamite lessened the demand for black powder, the
Works’ top product. The Hercules Powder Company absorbed the California Powder
Works and in 1914, moved the operations to the East Bay and Utah.22 Santa Cruz’s days
as an industrial town were over.
Fortunately for the city, several boosters realized the region’s potential as a tourist
destination long before Santa Cruz’s industrial engines stalled. These boosters started
drawing Bay Area and valley dwellers to the area as early as the 1860s. Nature again
played the starring role in attracting this new economic engine. John Leibbrandt opened
the first bathhouse on the Main Beach in 1865 and several more followed, promising
relaxation, healing, good views, a mild climate, and good air.23 Developers laid out tracts
of vacation home lots along the coast southeast of the city and gave the areas fanciful
21
Lehmann, Context, 7, 10.
Koch, Parade, 43.
23
Lehmann, Context, 7.
22
47
names like “Seabright” and “Twin Lakes.” Throughout the 1880s and 90s, wealthy and
upper middle class families from San Francisco and the Central Valley built vacation
homes and a few mansions in these enclaves. They spent entire summers in Santa Cruz
enjoying the seashore and events like the annual Venetian Water Carnival parade and
musical performances on the river.24
Still, tourism did not emerge as a major economic factor until after the turn of the
twentieth century. As Santa Cruz’s heavy industry disappeared, the tourist economy
swung into high gear when promoters realized that the same mountains, trees, and
waterways that had been appealing to industrialists, could now be repackaged as
picturesque and sold to tourists. Promoters adapted the area’s built environment and
infrastructure to serve the blossoming number of visitors. The same roads that once
facilitated the transport of felled trees out of the forest now carried tourists into the woods
to marvel over the remaining trees.25 Southern Pacific’s freight hauling lines soon shared
the rails with passenger excursion trains like the “Picnic Line” and the “Suntan Special.”
Resorts replaced logging camps in San Lorenzo Valley north of Santa Cruz in locations
like Brookdale. The Masons bought the site of the California Powder Works in 1919 for
use as a summer home tract; with some homeowners incorporating parts of the old
24
Koch, Parade, 194-195
Lehmann, Context, 8. The economic reality that people would pay to see the tall trees is partially
responsible for the birth of the region’s reigning conservation ethic. As leaders realized that the area needed
something to replace its dying industries, they quickly jumped on the conservation bandwagon to preserve
what little forest remained.
25
48
powder works buildings into their vacation cabins. Former industrial built environments
quickly adapted to serve the county’s new dominant economic engine.26
Changes occurred at the beach as well where pleasure piers replaced industrial
wharves and sightseers out to enjoy the area’s natural beauty supplanted longshoremen.
Santa Cruz’s biggest promoter, Brooklyn-born Fred Swanton, bought the Main Beach
bathhouses in 1903 and constructed the fabulous Neptune Casino, complete with dressing
rooms, grill, rooftop garden, plunge and ballroom. Swanton also erected a tent city
behind the casino to attract and house visitors who could not afford to own their own
vacation homes. Swanton traveled up and down the state on a special train loaded with
dignitaries, a brass band and a bar, extolling the virtues of summering in Santa Cruz to
bring people to the area. Swanton also organized the Union Traction Company, a venture
that combined the city’s many streetcar lines into one company and extended service to
the east and south of the city’s core, spurring development in those areas.27 The great
booster also played a role in the establishment of the Big Creek Power Company, the
business that brought electricity to Santa Cruz (and to the beachside casino of course).
Swanton’s energy was endless, despite some setbacks wrought by natural forces. The tent
city was briefly unavailable for tourist use while it housed refugees from San Francisco
after the 1906 earthquake.28 A spectacular fire burned the Neptune Casino to the sand in
June 1906, but Swanton quickly rebuilt a new casino by summer 1907 and planned for
more. Swanton’s Spanish-Mediterranean style Casa del Rey hotel replaced the tent city in
26
Koch, Parade, 217.
Koch, Parade, 58-59, 207.
28
Lydon, “Loma Prieta 20th Anniversary.” Fortunately for Fred, April was not the height of the tourist
season.
27
49
1910, followed by the La Bahia apartments in 1920, constructed for longer term visitors
(but not permanent residents). Swanton ultimately overextended himself though and went
bankrupt in 1912. A group of investors organized the still-extant Seaside Company to
take over and expand Swanton’s holdings. The result of these efforts is the amusement
park today known as the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk.29
Tourism continued to be a driving force in the city’s economy throughout the
1920s, 30s and 40s, but the growing popularity of the automobile beginning in the late
1910s changed the character of tourism in Santa Cruz. Highway supporter (and mountain
property owner) Charlie Martin began his campaign for the construction of a roadway
over the mountains directly after the 1906 earthquake. In a letter to the Santa Cruz
Sentinel, Martin highlighted how the quake had isolated the county by damaging the
railways, and he urged the construction of more reliable, public roads. Several years later
in 1915, the state completed the Glenwood Highway, the first gravel road to San Jose.30
The new road brought more people to Santa Cruz, but for shorter periods. The completion
of the paved Highway 17 over the Santa Cruz Mountains from the Santa Clara Valley in
1940, made it even easier for travelers to visit Santa Cruz for just a day.31 Vacation
homes in Seabright and other areas of the city became permanent residences as the newly
mobile visitors checked into motor court motels for shorter holidays. Visitors’ preference
for auto travel affected the Southern Pacific as well. Business had already diminished
when nature dealt the final blow to the railroad’s tourist-serving lines. After severe
29
Lehmann, Context, 15-18.
Donna Jones, Santa Cruz: A Century (Santa Cruz: Santa Cruz Sentinel Publishers Co., 1999), 15. The
Glenwood Highway, of course, crossed Charlie Martin’s property.
31
Richard A. Beal, Highway 17: The Road to Santa Cruz (Aptos, CA: The Pacific Group, 1991), 91.
30
50
storms damaged the tracks in the winter of 1939-40, the railroad decided that it was not
worth the expense to maintain the tracks, and discontinued the Picnic Line and the Suntan
Special.32 Visitors kept coming in their cars though, drawn by conventions, events like
the Miss California pageant, and then-Mayor Fred Swanton’s continued statewide
advertising.33
World War II halted the city’s expansion briefly as potential visitors and residents
turned their attention to the war effort, but once the war ended, a new boom was on. Gas
and other restrictions limited the number of tourists that came to town during the war, as
did the military’s use of many of the city’s tourist-serving facilities.34 The military’s
presence benefited the city’s growth after the war though. Many of the veterans who
enjoyed Santa Cruz’s natural setting while training or recuperating in and around the city
returned, either as permanent residents or for family vacations. A new crop of tourist
attractions emerged to feed the growing demands of these prosperous postwar families.
Harry Cowell, Henry Cowell’s son and last surviving heir, sold the family’s beach just
west of the Boardwalk to the city of Santa Cruz in 1953. Soon after, in 1954, Cowell
gifted 1,600 acres of redwood forest between Santa Cruz and Felton to the state for the
creation of Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park. Christmas-themed amusement park
Santa’s Village opened in Scotts Valley near Highway 17 in 1957, followed in 1963 by
32
Koch, Parade, 112.
Jones, Santa Cruz, 18-22; Koch, Parade, 221-222. Fred Swanton brought the Miss California pageant to
Santa Cruz in 1924. Religious leaders halted the contest between 1928 and 1933 because of their concerns
about the morality of parading the contestants in swimsuits. An entirely new group of protestors –
feminists, emblematic of the city’s new liberal bent - succeeded in getting the contest moved to San Diego
in 1985.
34
Jones, Santa Cruz, 28. The Casa del Rey hotel became a military hospital, while the Navy used the
Boardwalk’s Plunge swimming pool for therapy and training.
33
51
Felton’s Roaring Camp. This railroad themed picnic park revived the practice of using
the rails to take tourists to view nature with its steam train trip through the forest. Not to
be outdone, the Seaside Company gave the Boardwalk and Cocoanut Grove a face-lift in
the 1950s.35
Santa Cruz also benefited economically from its proximity to the blossoming high
tech industry in the nearby Santa Clara Valley. The completion of a freeway on Highway
1 between Santa Cruz and Aptos in 1949, followed by freeway construction on Highway
17 between Los Gatos and San Jose in 1959, allowed county residents to commute easily
to jobs in the Silicon Valley. Residents could now work in the Valley and still enjoy
living close to the beach and mountain forests. Other residents worked in the county at
the small number of tech firms that established their main or satellite operations in Santa
Cruz. Defense contractor Lockheed opened a test base and plant just north of the city in
1957, followed by headset maker Plantronics in 1962. Watkins-Johnson, Sylvania
Electric, and other firms moved into the county as well, mostly on the city of Santa
Cruz’s Westside and in neighboring Scotts Valley. The demand for housing brought
about by this tech-and-tourist fueled job growth led to a limited resurgence of the logging
and lumbering industry. By mid-century, trees too small to be cut fifty years earlier now
were large enough to be logged, providing much of the lumber needed to supply the
county’s appetite for building.36
35
36
Koch, Parade, 128-129; Jones, Santa Cruz, 34.
Jones, Santa Cruz, 34-35.
52
The 1950s and early 1960s in Santa Cruz were not just growth and good-times
though. In 1955, Mother Nature again demonstrated her power over the city and county’s
economic and physical destinies. Fourteen to eighteen inches of rain fell over five days
countywide, swelling the river and streams. On December 22, the San Lorenzo River
reached a height of twenty feet and overflowed its banks along nearly its entire length
from the San Lorenzo Valley down into the city of Santa Cruz. The river inundated
neighborhoods situated in the floodplain on its east and west sides, including downtown
and Paradise Park, the former California Powder Works site turned housing development.
These same neighborhoods had experienced flooding many times before, some of them
as recently as 1940, but in 1955, two things were different. The waters in 1955 rose
higher than they had in recent memory, inundating all the flood-prone areas
simultaneously and at a depth of three to four feet in some places.37 More people also
lived full time in the affected areas than ever before. The flooding forced the evacuation
of over 2,000 residents and caused the entire county to grind to a halt as flooded roads
and debris-damaged bridges closed. Eight people died countywide, and the flooding
caused $7.5 million in damage in the city of Santa Cruz alone. Shell-shocked Santa Cruz
city leaders quickly resurrected an Army Corps of Engineers plan for a system of levees,
developed after the 1940 floods but shelved when World War II broke out.38 The
enormous project realigned some streets, totally eliminated others, demolished many
buildings, and tore out trees and other vegetation, ruining the river for wildlife and
37
38
McMahon, “History of Floods.”
Jones, Santa Cruz, 38; Lydon, “Loma Prieta 20th Anniversary.”
53
fishermen alike. A smaller flood in April 1958 inundated some of the same areas as the
1955 flood, but the impact was minimal since construction crews had already removed
many of the buildings that would have sustained damage. The Corps completed the
project in 1959, effectively slicing the city in half with a “sterile drainage ditch.”39 The
aftermath of disaster, once again, had a major impact on the character of the city’s built
environment.
Flooding was not city and county leaders’ only concern in the 1950s and 60s.
With an economy based largely on seasonal tourism dollars and a population comprised
of a growing number of retirees, leaders and boosters worried about the limited potential
for future economic growth. City government and economic leaders sought to bring a
new engine of clean economic development to the area in the form of a college campus.
Boosters actively wooed the Regents of the University of California, who in the late
1950s were flush with cash and vetting sites statewide for new UC campuses. Boosters
brought the Regents to the potential campus site high above the city where the sweeping
views of the Monterey Bay and surrounding redwood forest thoroughly impressed the
Regents. Santa Cruz’s dreams for the campus became a reality when the Cowell
Foundation, the charitable trust responsible for the Cowell family holdings, gave the
Regents an excellent price for Cowell Ranch. This, coupled with promises from the City
that it would undertake $2 million worth of infrastructure improvements, sealed the deal
39
McMahon, “Flood Control.”
54
in 1961. Four years later, the University of California, Santa Cruz opened on the former
site of Davis and Cowell’s lime producing operations.40
The University transformed the city, but not in the way that business leaders had
hoped that it would, as the University brought the profound national social changes of the
1960s to Santa Cruz in a big way. The University and the city developed a contentious
“town-gown” relationship from the start when campus life did not live up to the city’s
expectations. Hippies showed up in town instead of “plaid-skirted co-eds” and smokeouts took the place of idyllic football games and “frat parties.”41 UCSC attracted even
more liberal-minded students and faculty than other more traditional institutions with its
experimental design: a university of small colleges that allowed for smaller classes and
more faculty-student interaction. Nature, of course, played a role in the kind of student
drawn to UCSC too. The university’s location, a hilltop dotted with meadows and second
growth redwood forest glens, drew budding environmental scientists and activists. The
University also focused less on science and more on liberal arts than its sister UC
campuses, appealing to students interested in social issues and cultural change. The
campus also lacked professional schools in subjects like medicine and business, seen as a
moderating influence on the more liberal disciplines of humanities and social science.
Much to the chagrin of longtime residents, these longhaired students held militant
protests and boycotts over issues like the Vietnam War, civil rights, labor disputes, and
40
41
Jones, Santa Cruz, 41, 44.
Jones, Santa Cruz, 41.
55
later, the environment. Santa Cruz was well on its way from “sleepy, somewhat seedy
beach town” to “bastion of the counterculture” and “hotbed of environmental activism.”42
The arrival of the University also signaled a change in the city’s politics, as
political power shifted from the traditional, business-oriented growth machine to
progressives interested in slow (or no) growth and social issues like poverty eradication
and the reform of the criminal justice system. The change began in the late 1960s and
early 1970s as environmentally conscious students and neighborhood activists unified to
fight several massive development projects. The fight over one project, considered the
seminal event in local politics, involved a developer’s $20 million 1968 plan to build a
convention center, shops and restaurants on Lighthouse Field, a cliff top location just
west of the Boardwalk.43 Neighbors concerned about potential traffic, as well as the
privatization of what is arguably the city’s most scenic vista, enlisted the help of student
activists to fight the development. Simultaneously, students and neighborhood groups
closer to downtown protested the state’s proposal to reroute Highway 1 and build a
freeway that would tear through the city’s Westside and eliminate parts of downtown.
More development battles brewed on the city’s northern border, as farmers sold huge
tracts of prime coastal land to developers who planned to build thousands of houses,
eliminating acres of open space.44 Concern for natural resource conservation heralded a
coming change in the city’s politics.
Richard A. Gendron, “Faultlines of Power: The Political Economy of Redevelopment in a Progressive
City After a Natural Disaster” (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz, 1998), 125, 121.
43
Jones, Santa Cruz, 46-47.
44
Gendron, “Faultlines,” 127-133.
42
56
Ultimately, development foes defeated all of these proposals in the 1970s,
illustrating the swing in local politics and demonstrating that progressive anti-growth
advocates could become powerful leaders. Several factors affected their success. The
lowering of the voting age to eighteen in 1971 gave political power to a larger number of
liberal-minded students and Santa Cruz keenly felt their influence.45 Many members of
UCSC’s first generation of students had graduated by the 1970s and had chosen to stay in
the area. This created another influential voting bloc with liberal, slow-growth views that
complimented those of the matriculating students. These former students obtained jobs in
local government and area non-profits or started their own organizations focused on
social and environmental justice where they continued to influence the opinions of the
community at large.
The community though, did not require much convincing about development
issues as the environmental consequences of years of unrestrained growth became
abundantly clear. Traffic worsened as Silicon Valley boomed and more county residents
commuted “over the hill” to work from increasingly far-flung housing developments.
Environmental studies discovered pollution in the bay that forced the closure of some
beaches and canceled popular beachside events. Researchers also found pollution in
creeks and in the city of Santa Cruz’s main source of drinking water – the San Lorenzo
River. Experts attributed most of the contamination to old, broken, poorly mapped sewer
lines and septic tanks overloaded by full-time use. Early developers built the area’s
sewers and septic systems to serve vacation homes, not permanent residences, and the
45
Jones, Santa Cruz, 41.
57
overflow seeped into waterways. Town and gown voters alike responded to these
concerns by overwhelmingly voting in favor of anti-growth measures and candidates at
the city and county level, with a progressive majority taking over the Santa Cruz City
Council in 1981.46
The 1980s were a difficult decade for the newly progressive Santa Cruz, to say
the least. The city emerged from the 1970s with a new liberal bent, but also with a dark
moniker, the “Murder Capital of the World,” coined after three separate local serial
killers killed twenty-six people between 1970 and 1972. The area’s ever-attractive,
secluded natural setting and growing acceptance of alternative lifestyles lured nonstudent hippie types to the county along with those interested in obtaining a degree.47
Most hippies were harmless, but one of the three serial killers illustrated the darker side
of the counterculture with a Manson-esque note left at the crime scene and his
proclamation that the killings were revenge against those who “rape the environment.”48
The memory of these killings and the increasing visibility of “street-people” fostered
continued public uncertainty about the city’s swelling population of transients and
homeless in the 1980s. This forced the city’s new progressive leaders to perform a
delicate tap dance. Progressives on the city council had to balance their belief in funding
social programs with the political reality of staying in office. Though the electorate
46
Jones, Santa Cruz, 46-47.
The county’s deteriorating tourist resort stock attracted counterculture colonies too, one more example of
how each successive new group in Santa Cruz adapts the previous groups’ environmental manipulations for
its own purposes. Hippies found the cheap rents and seclusion of cabin cluster type resorts in the nowreforested San Lorenzo Valley especially enticing.
48
Jones, Santa Cruz, 48. Killer John Linley Frazier grew up locally, but was considered a “hippie drop-out”
type. It was members of that very same community though who turned Frazier in to authorities.
47
58
supported conservation and slow-growth, many voters still were not completely
comfortable with spending scarce tax dollars on the bum on the corner. All of this
tarnished the city’s fun-time tourist-mecca image and replaced it with a darker, grittier
aura in the 1980s.49
Natural forces greatly impacted the Santa Cruz region in the 1980s as well, this
time challenging the progressives, students, and tech workers. The 1981 discovery of
voracious Mediterranean fruit flies in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the resulting
quarantine and spray, cost the local agricultural industry millions of dollars.50 Storms
during the winters of 1982 and 1983 dumped heavy rains on the county, again causing
chaos as low-lying neighborhoods flooded and roads closed. A particularly virulent storm
in January 1982 brought the river to a height only two feet below its twenty-foot
December 1955 peak. This same storm sent a large piece of the Soquel Avenue bridge
between the east and west sides of Santa Cruz into the river and caused a landslide in the
San Lorenzo Valley that buried ten residents. Twenty-two people died during the storm
Joel Schumacher’s 1987 cult-classic movie The Lost Boys, where Santa Cruz stands in for the fictional
town of Santa Carla, illustrates this mood particularly well. The movie follows a teenage new arrival that
falls in with a cult of vampires who turn out to be well-known presence in town. The movie’s dark,
foreboding scenes give the city’s vistas and built environment an edge, showing them as places where
mysterious undercurrents run below the surface, which is already odd enough, but accepted by the majority.
The movie, like Santa Cruz itself, does not confine the strangeness to youth culture, as a middle-aged
merchant is revealed to be the head vampire. Another city might shun the image the movie projects, but
Santa Cruz embraces it. Even the Boardwalk, the region’s biggest tourist attraction, screens the film at least
once every summer on the beach.
50
Jones, Santa Cruz, 52. Agriculture is today Santa Cruz County’s second largest industry (after tourism),
but it is largely concentrated in the southern end of the county and historically affiliated with the
development of the city of Santa Cruz’s sometime-rival city Watsonville. Since other forces shaped the city
of Santa Cruz more than the agricultural development of South County, analysis of the industry is left out
of this study.
49
59
and the county sustained $100 million worth of damage, but the city of Santa Cruz itself
suffered little damage.51
The city’s levees kept the rising waters out of downtown and the other
neighborhoods that flooded in 1955, but the city was very fortunate that this scenario is
the one that played out in 1982. In the 1970s, local earth scientists voiced concerns about
the high level of silt accumulating in the riverbed because of the river’s containment.
They predicted that the clogged channel would not be able to handle a heavy flow and
that rising waters would either top the levees or cause them to fail and flood the city. City
leaders decided it was too expensive to continually dredge the river’s channel and
ignored the problem. Luckily for the city, the river’s swift storm current scoured the
sediment out of the channel and prevented widespread flooding within the city limits.52
Three years later, mountain homeowners near the Santa Clara County line were not so
fortunate when a fire destroyed their properties. The Lexington Fire started on July 7,
1985 near Lexington Reservoir, off of Highway 17 and over four days, burned 14,000
acres and forty-two homes.53 Nature, once again, in the 1980s proved itself a formidable
force.
By 1989, a mix of University affiliates, environmentalists, one-time hippies,
retirees, high-tech workers, closet conservatives, oddballs, small business owners, and
service industry employees populated the hard-luck mission settlement turned industrial
boomtown, tourist mecca, college town, and hippie haven. Progressives held a hardMcMahon, “History of Floods;” Jones, Santa Cruz, 53.
McMahon, “Flood Control.”
53
Jones, Santa Cruz, 53.
51
52
60
fought hold on political power as social strife and further fights over growth haunted the
city. Business leaders worried about losing customers to neighboring cities with more
development friendly policies and glossy new shopping centers. Santa Cruz County had
already faced two federal disaster declarations (the 1982 storms and 1985 fire) in less
than ten years. But these were only a preview of what was to come on October 17, 1989
when a massive earthquake shook the city for fifteen earth-shattering seconds. Nature, as
it had so many times before, rocked Santa Cruz. Nowhere was the damage more
pronounced than on the downtown Pacific Garden Mall, but October 17, 1989 was not
the first time human hubris and folly allowed a natural force to bring the city’s central
business district to its knees.
Downtown: Mud, Ashes, and Bricks
Downtown Santa Cruz served as the commercial center for the entire county for
over 100 years and because of this, the evolution of downtown Santa Cruz mirrored the
development of the county overall, both in growth and in proclivity for disaster.
Lumbermen, merchants, promoters and fraternal organizations all constructed buildings
downtown as they achieved success. The resultant pre-1989 downtown built environment
reflected this development. The buildings became larger and more opulent as the fortunes
of the county and its citizens grew. Wood gave way to brick and Italianate, Queen Anne,
Spanish/Mission Revival and finally Moderne architectural styles replaced vernacular
frontier styles, and each other, as the building designs of choice. Changes to the Pacific
Avenue street alignment and streetscape also reflected the needs of the successive groups
to hold sway over the county’s economic and political fortunes. These elements of the
61
built environment reflected the tastes and time period of the industrialists, tourists, and
students/progressives, and before 1989, physical evidence of each time period existed
simultaneously downtown.
As in the history of the city and county overall though, economic forces were not
the only powers that shaped downtown’s development. Environmental factors hugely
influenced downtown development since early settlers sited downtown in entirely the
wrong place.54 This made the area exceedingly disaster prone, so much so that disasters
shaped development more in downtown Santa Cruz than in any other single area of the
county. Surveying the construction dates of downtown buildings reveals clusters of
buildings erected or remodeled within a year of each other. For most groups, this trend
did not emerge because of economic booms, but because of disasters. These clusters have
common construction or repair dates that immediately postdate each of the myriad
disasters to strike the central business district. A huge fire, a massive earthquake, and
multiple floods all wreaked havoc on the downtown built environment before the
earthquake in 1989, but nature is not entirely to blame for the destruction. Human
ignorance of the area’s environmental conditions, choices made by city leaders and
citizens and a lack of disaster prevention practices caused downtown to be extremely
vulnerable to natural forces.
Downtown sits on the flats on the west side of the San Lorenzo River’s
floodplain between Mission Hill, Beach Hill, and the river itself, a prime location for
flooding. Before the installation of the levees in 1959, the river meandered over these
54
Lydon, “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary.”
62
flatlands, sometimes remaining in the same general channel, sometimes not, but never
flowing in such a narrow, static path as it does today. Increased seasonal flows caused the
river to expand, inundating the area and any structure built there. The shifting waterway
also created soft soil in the flatlands with its silt deposits and ground saturation. Buildings
constructed on this type of soil are especially vulnerable to earthquake damage because
the shaking causes the wet, sandy soil to turn into a churning mud in a process called
liquefaction. This phenomenon amplifies earthquake shaking and building movement,
meaning that structures built on this soft soil sustain greater damage than those built on
hard rock. These environmental conditions, taken together with the fire danger posed by
the densely packed, mostly wood-framed structures with little available fire protection set
the stage for multiple catastrophes.
Early settlers likely would not have known about liquefaction and the earthquake
danger, but the Spanish, and later the Americans, quickly became aware of the threat of
flooding. As described above, the Spanish relocated the mission settlement from the San
Lorenzo’s banks to the top of the bluff above the river after several years of flooding.
Smartly, the padres turned the flatlands into the mission gardens and used the land for
growing beans and vegetables instead of building structures.55 Other Spanish and
Mexican period arrivals settled around the mission at the top of the hill. This was a finite
space however, and when Methodist preacher turned blacksmith/merchant Elihu Anthony
arrived in the 1840s, Mission Hill was largely built out. Undaunted, Anthony bought land
down on the flats and constructed a combination blacksmith shop, general store, post
55
Rowland, Early Years, 98.
63
office, and foundry in 1848. After a trip to the gold fields in 1849, Anthony realized the
money making potential of potatoes as a supplement to the miners’ stark diets. He
returned to Santa Cruz and parceled out his riverfront (or river-covered) lots to fellow
farmers. Support structures like tents and a customhouse soon followed. Downtown
development was now underway.56
Still, there was little built environment for potential floods to affect until the mid1850s. The number of buildings on the flats began to grow after a bust in 1852-53 when
potato farming suddenly became less profitable. Property owners now saddled with
unproductive farms made what they believed to be the best of the situation by
constructing businesses on their land - sometimes on stilts above the river – to serve the
incoming lumbermen, lime makers, and other industrialists. The settlers built relatively
simple, unornamented wooden structures that served utilitarian purposes as shops,
rooming houses, and restaurants. Fortunately for these new arrivals, no notable floods
occurred during the 1850s. The river rose every winter and sometimes inundated
basements, but there were still few buildings for the water to damage. 57
That changed in the later 1850s and 1860s. The downtown area grew as the
county’s American industries prospered, and this growth placed more structures in the
river’s path. More Americans arrived in the 1850s and 60s, and like Anthony, found
much of the prime land on the bluffs already developed. These newcomers claimed the
land that was available – the area along the river where downtown was beginning to
Ross Eric Gibson, “Santa Cruz Owes Site to Spud Rush,” Santa Cruz County Public Libraries Local
History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/405.
57
Daniel McMahon, “Degree of Damage and Public Reaction to Floods,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/307.
56
64
emerge. The flatlands became the American/Protestant area while the Catholic
descendents of the Spanish, Mexican and early American/foreign settlers populated
Mission Hill. As the Californios’ influence diminished, and as American industries
flourished, the flats gained importance.58 Commercial activity moved from Mission Hill
to Main Street, (today’s Front Street), and Willow Street (today’s Pacific Avenue) to take
advantage of the area’s better access to the wharves being constructed as the city
industrialized. Hotels, general stores, pharmacies, and saloons sprung up to serve the
needs of the rapidly growing county.59
The massive flood of 1861-62 set this growth back briefly and threatened the
future of downtown. After weeks of rain, the river rose and flooded the little downtown
in January 1862. The rising waters eroded the soil under some buildings, washing many
located directly on the river out to sea.60 Downtown property owners finally realized the
threat the river posed to commercial activity in the area and organized to try and lessen
the danger. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to relocate the city’s
burgeoning central business district, city leaders made their first attempt to control nature
and decided to reroute the river. Landowners considered erecting a bulkhead at the base
of Mission Hill to block the river’s path to downtown and to prevent erosion on Mission
Hill.61 To facilitate bulkhead construction, the landowners decided to incorporate, which
they soon discovered they could not do because most of them did not legally hold title to
their lands. American alcades (mayors) had misinterpreted Mexican law and improperly
Lydon, “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary.”
Lehmann, Context, 19.
60
McMahon, “History of Floods.”
61
The site of the bulkhead is today’s Bulkhead Street, off of North Pacific Avenue, north of the town clock.
58
59
65
distributed the land during and right after the period when the area was under Mexican
rule. When the United States assumed control over the region, none of the town property
owners took their titles before the Federal Lands Commission, meaning that the titles
were invalid under American law as well. After years of legal wrangling, an 1866 act of
Congress granted downtown property owners title to their lands and allowed the town to
incorporate, all as a result of the 1862 flood and subsequent bulkhead construction. Once
completed, the bulkhead lessened the damage from future floods, but did not totally
eliminate the threat though. Water could still flow around the bulkhead and into the
emerging central business district. 62
With the misplaced sense of security brought by the bulkhead, property owners
continued building downtown on the flats along the river. Most major commercial
activity shifted to Willow Street after an 1866 survey realigned streets and gave Willow,
now named “Pacific Avenue,” the best access to the port and beaches. The area’s natural
features influenced this development of the built environment. The new Pacific Avenue
took a more direct course to the waterfront past Beach Hill, a natural impediment
blocking industrial and commercial access to shipping. The street realignment eliminated
this barrier and served the interests of the reigning industrialists. As more white
businesses moved to Pacific Avenue, rents there rose and Santa Cruz’s small Chinatown
relocated from Pacific Avenue to the east side of Main Street, now called “Front Street.”
Amidst these changes, downtown experienced a building boom in the 1870s and 80s as
Lydon, “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary”; Rowland, 56. Professor Lydon points out that downtown
property owners would have found out about the land issue eventually, but that the flood accelerated this
discovery.
62
66
the county’s industrial fortunes grew. Downtown buildings grew as well, both in size and
in adornment as downtown Santa Cruz became “the commercial center of an industrial
empire.”63 These buildings accommodated larger businesses and institutions emerging
downtown to support the burgeoning, sophisticating population. Retail stores comprised
the lower floors while fraternal halls, entertainment venues, residences and offices
occupied the upper floors.
Property owners began replacing “boom-town utilitarian structures” with “quality
commercial architecture” both to reflect this prosperity and to compete with Monterey for
tourist dollars.64 Professional architects designed Pacific Avenue buildings predominantly
in the Commercial Italianate style, but Stick-Eastlake, Neo-Classical, and other styles
emerged as well. Many of these buildings rose to two or three stories and largely filled
their lots, forming a continuous street wall on some blocks. Wood-framed brick buildings
filled in vacant lots or replaced earlier wooden structures.65 Property owners and builders
benefited from their proximity to the county’s natural resources and heavy industry.
Redwood from the surrounding forests framed and adorned downtown buildings. Bricks
from the Cowell and other county lime works comprised the walls. Wrought iron from
local foundries decorated the Flatiron (Hugo Hihn), Compass Rose (Lulu Carpenter’s),
and other buildings.
Though these new buildings were prettier and more substantial, they were still
vulnerable to natural forces, just like their predecessors. The river remained a threat and
63
Lehmann, Context, 20.
Ross Eric Gibson, “Santa Cruz Has Long History of Convention Business,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/353.
65
Charles Hall Page & Associates, Pacific Avenue Design Plan, San Francisco: 1978, 4-5.
64
67
flooded downtown basements in 1871, 1878, 1880 and 1890.66 The opposite problem –
lack of water – led to a large-scale disaster in April 1894 when fire destroyed the block
bounded by Front, Pacific and Cooper Streets (today the 1500 block of Pacific Avenue
and the County Courthouse on the south side of Cooper Street. The fire began in a
grocery store on Cooper Street and spread unchecked. Earlier that afternoon, a gate at the
city’s Mission Hill reservoir had failed, cutting off the water supply to downtown.
Complicating the situation, only one of the city’s ill-equipped volunteer fire brigades
were still active fire fighters. With no professional fire department and no water, citizens
could do little but stand and watch the fire destroy at least nine major buildings, including
the County Courthouse on Cooper Street, A.P. Hotaling’s hotel, the People’s Bank,
Wessendorf and Staffler’s undertaking parlor, and Michael Leonard’s saloon on Pacific
Avenue, plus all of Chinatown on Front Street.67
After the fire, property owners rebuilt the burned area. Michael Leonard moved
his operation eastward a block from the corner of Pacific Avenue and Cooper Street to
the corner of Cooper and Front Streets. Leonard constructed a new two-story Queen
Anne style building to replace the earlier structure on the site destroyed by the fire. Santa
Cruz County Bank assumed Leonard’s old lot on Pacific Avenue and constructed a twostory sandstone building. A.P. Hotaling rebuilt his ruined hotel and named the new
structure the “St. George Hotel,” after the saint who defeated a fire-breathing dragon. On
Cooper Street, the new County Courthouse (later called the Cooper House) and the
McMahon, “History of Floods.”
Pamela Reynolds, “The Great Santa Cruz Fire of 1894,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History
Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/311; Rowland, Early Years, 188.
66
67
68
Hihn/Staffler double building replaced structures destroyed by the fire. Two more
buildings, the Jarvis/Simpson Building and the Pease Building on Pacific Avenue,
required extensive remodeling after the fire.68 A new city ordinance influenced the design
of these and later structures and changed the look of the post-1894 downtown. The City,
concerned that the dense concentration of wood and wood framed structures increased the
fire danger (which they did), mandated that all new downtown structures be constructed
of brick. This ordinance, as historian Sandy Lydon notes, “drove downtown Santa Cruz
into the arms of St. Andrew [San Andres] and the earthquakes.” The unreinforced
masonry structures that resulted from this building code change proved to be highly
vulnerable to subsequent earthquakes.69
The first of those earthquakes occurred at 5:12 a.m. on April 18, 1906. The soft
alluvial soil downtown churned for around a minute and unreinforced bricks crashed to
the ground. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported on April 19 that no two or three story brick
buildings in Santa Cruz had collapsed completely, but the paper’s damage descriptions
and inventory of affected downtown buildings demonstrates that the earthquake’s impact
downtown was extensive. Chimneys toppled, damaging roofs and floors as they fell.
Plate glass windows all along Pacific Avenue shattered. The Sentinel listed buildings as
“out of plumb” and “disjointed.” Damage reports on specific buildings add to the disaster
narratives of particular sites. Walls on the Hotaling and Heard buildings fell. The Hugo
Hihn (Flatiron) building, sited on the triangular lot at the confluence of Front Street,
68
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 166. These buildings were later incorporated into the St. George Hotel
structure.
69
Lydon, “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary.” Of the buildings mentioned in this paragraph, only the Leonard
Building survived the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
69
Water/Mission Street and Pacific Avenue, survived the 1894 fire. The first brick structure
constructed on the flat was not so lucky during this and other earthquakes though. The
Sentinel reported that the Flatiron Building cracked in 1906, just like it had when it
sustained heavy damage during earlier earthquakes in the 1860s. Down the block, the
County Bank, St. George Hotel and Leonard buildings, all erected directly after the 1894
fire, also all sustained damage in the earthquake. The bank building “settled,” making
access to the vault difficult, while fallen chimneys wrecked the St. George Hotel’s central
garden court.70
Other buildings tumbled in ways that foreshadowed damage that they or other
buildings would sustain in 1989. Further south on the corner of Pacific Avenue and
Lincoln Street, the walls of the Hihn Block all cracked. The Sentinel reported that the
back of the building’s upper story suffered the most damage and appeared to be on the
verge of collapse. Workers tore down the rear end of the Hihn Block and repaired it. In
1989, the front and Lincoln Street sides of that same building, by then known as the
Medico-Dental building, caved in. Across the street in 1906, the upper parts of the east
and south walls of the Farmer’s Union building fell onto shorter, neighboring buildings,
collapsing their roofs in a prophetic scenario hauntingly similar to damage done on the
1500 block of Pacific Avenue in 1989.71 In that earthquake, the north wall of the
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Most terrible and destructive earthquake,” April 18, 1906, p.1; Santa Cruz
Sentinel, “Earthquake notes,” April 19, 1906, p. 1, 2, 5, 7; Santa Cruz Sentinel “Earthquake paragraphs,”
April 20, 1906, p. 3. The Sentinel does not specify the damage to the Leonard building, only that it was
“worse than thought” two days after the earthquake.
71
The present 1929 Bank of America building sits on the site of the Farmer’s Union building. The bank
building sustained little damage in 1989.
70
70
Williamson and Garrett building, home to Bookshop Santa Cruz, fell onto the shorter
Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company next-door, killing two people.72
No building suffered greater damage in 1906 than the new County Courthouse
(later known as the Cooper House), built after the 1894 fire to replace the first courthouse
on the corner of Cooper Street and Pacific Avenue. During construction, construction
supervisor Thomas Beck constantly complained about architect N.A. Comstock’s
changes to the plans and his use of substandard materials. The Board of Supervisors soon
discovered that Comstock had been embezzling from the county and fired him. Though
Beck and architect Edward Van Cleeck took over the job, the building still suffered
heavy damage in 1906. “The courthouse is almost completely destroyed. It is hard to tell
just what keeps the roof from caving in.” the Sentinel reporter wrote on April 18. The
building’s cupola crashed through the ceiling and down to the basement, damaging
offices and the courtroom. The building’s walls of locally produced brick cracked,
proving to be no match for the shaking and liquefaction of the building site’s soft soil.
The County Board of Supervisors questioned whether the damage was too extensive to
repair, but ultimately decided to keep the building, sans the cupola. According to the
Sentinel, workers had already started piecing the shattered building back together by
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Most Terrible and Destructive Earthquake,” April 18, 1906, p.1; Santa Cruz
Sentinel, “Earthquake notes,” April 19, 1906, p. 5; Quinton Skinner (downtown worker in 1989), interview
by Jonathan Shapiro, 1989, “The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989: A UCSC Student Oral
History Documentary Project” transcript, edited by Irene Reti, UCSC Regional History Project, Santa Cruz,
CA, 2006, 52-53.
72
71
April 21.73 Their work did not prove to be earthquake safe as the building again sustained
heavy damage in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and was subsequently demolished.
Builders in 1906 did not completely understand the combination of natural and
human forces that made downtown buildings vulnerable to earthquakes, but the Sentinel
reporter’s keen remarks indicate that residents had some inkling that buildings could be
constructed to better withstand earthquakes. The reporter noted what areas the earthquake
damaged the most and which buildings fared best. Though the Sentinel writer in 1906
was not aware of the reason behind what he observed, it was not lost on him what area of
town sustained the greatest damage. “The damage was worse on the flat than on the hills
surrounding” he commented on April 18. Of the buildings on the flat, the reporter noticed
that two structures reinforced by their owners after the 1868 earthquake suffered minimal
damage in 1906. The McPherson Block on the corner of Pacific Avenue and Locust
Street, home to the Sentinel at the time “suffered little below the fire walls, beyond a big
fall of plaster in one room,” the reporter noted on April 19. Sentinel publishers Duncan
and Alexander McPherson reinforced the building with iron bolts after the 1868
earthquake damaged it during construction. This same building survived the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake. The Hihn/Delamater building, occupied in 1906 by the Henry Willey
Company’s hardware store, lost a section in the 1868 quake. When it was rebuilt,
contractors laid “several ribbons of iron” through the damaged section and in 1906 the
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 176; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Most Terrible and Destructive Earthquake,”
April 18, 1906, p.1; Ross Eric Gibson, “Shaky Morning in Santa Cruz: Quake Rattled Town in ‘06,” Santa
Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/262; Margaret Souza,
“The History of the Santa Cruz Courthouse,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/1/; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake quakes,” April 21, 1906, p. 4.
73
72
building stood “like a wall of stone.” The Sentinel journalist also speculated about the
disparity in destruction between buildings with particular types of foundations, noting
how type of foundation did not seem to make a difference. Clearly, the 1906 earthquake
inspired people in Santa Cruz to start thinking about earthquake safe building practices.74
Still, builders were either unaware of the benefit of reinforcing their buildings or
unwilling to undertake the additional expense. Downtown property owners repeated the
mistakes of their predecessors and used the same construction techniques and materials to
rebuild in the same soft-soiled area. Once downtown property owners completed repairs,
building in the area slowed for several years. Property owners erected a few new
buildings, like the 1910 Trust and Elks building (both of unreinforced masonry
construction), but as the county’s industrial fortunes declined, downtown construction
followed. Downtown had traditionally served the city’s industries and locals, while the
beach area catered to the tourists. By the 1910s and 20s, downtown still was the city’s
primary commercial area, providing residents with groceries, entertainment, and services,
but most of the new construction in the city was happening at the beach. As Santa Cruz’s
new principal economic engine, tourism, revved up, the beach area, as the primary tourist
destination, drew a larger share than downtown of the profits.
To entice some of these patrons back downtown, property owners remodeled their
buildings and in the mid-1920s, built a few new attractions. Beginning with the St.
George Hotel, and continuing throughout the 1920s, several downtown structures
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Most Terrible and Destructive Earthquake,” April 18, 1906, p.1; Santa Cruz
Sentinel, “Earthquake notes,” April 19, 1906, p. 2, 5; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake quakes,” April 21,
1904, p. 4; See Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 95, 142-143 for the reinforcement of the McPherson Building.
The Hihn/Delamater building did not survive the 1989 earthquake and demolitions.
74
73
including the Pray/Palmer, McPherson, and Bernheim/Rittenhouse buildings all received
facelifts that evoked the beachfront and loosely mimicked the trendy
Spanish/Mediterranean architectural style emerging there. Architects stuccoed or
plastered over these buildings’ bricks and used towers and detailing to transform the
Italianate style structures. The newly Spanish/Mediterranean style buildings matched the
more exotic architectural styling of the popular beach hotels, the La Bahia and the Casa
del Rey. In addition to remodeling older buildings, promoters also engaged in a small
campaign of new construction that brought more hotel rooms and more entertainment
downtown. The Hotalings in 1920 incorporated the neighboring Jarvis and Pease
buildings into the St. George Hotel and extended the Spanish/mission themed architecture
to those structures. Hoping to capitalize on the contemporary California mission fever,
the Hotalings renamed the hotel the “St. George Mission Inn.” Eight years later, William
H. Weeks designed the six-story tall Hotel Palomar, Santa Cruz’s first “skyscraper.” The
completed hotel opened two years later. The new hotel spaces downtown, combined with
those at the beach, attracted more conventions and visitors to downtown Santa Cruz.75
New movie theaters constructed downtown attracted conventioneers and locals
alike. With the coming of motion pictures, property owners modified parts of their
buildings to house movie theaters or converted existing vaudeville theaters to show
motion pictures. The Masonic Building housed the Jewel, while the Heard Building
hosted the Cameo and the St. George quartered the Gem. Several more small theaters like
75
Charles Hall Page and Associates, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, City of Santa Cruz, 176, 87;
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 158, 163-166; Gibson, “Convention Business;” Pearson, “National Register
Nomination,” 2-1-4, 7-5, 7-12.
74
the Unique and Princess populated Pacific Avenue as well. The more substantial New
Santa Cruz Theater opened on the corner of Lincoln and Walnut Street in 1920 bringing
movies to larger audiences. The Moderne Del Mar Theater outpaced them all in 1936
with its soaring neon marquee, lavish interior and uniformed ushers. The remodeling and
new construction efforts paid off and Santa Cruz became one of the most popular
convention cities.76 Unlike earlier building booms though, but still relevant to the point
that nature and disasters influenced downtown development, this small spate of
construction occurred during a lull period in the disaster cycle. No major earthquakes
occurred and the river largely stayed in its banks during this tourist-driven growth spurt.77
Better fire protection, a rare good disaster preparedness practice, ensured the confinement
of potential flames to the building of origin, preserving the changing built environment.
The respite from disaster ended in 1938 when the flood the Sentinel billed as the
“highest flood in fifteen years” beset the city and damaged downtown footbridges. The
San Lorenzo went on its “Worst Rampage of [the] Century” only two years later in
February 1940. The storm and rising river stopped trains and closed roads, isolating the
county once again. The 1940 flood was not the highest flood on the river in recent
memory though. The Sentinel quoted longtime resident and columnist Ernest Otto as
swearing that “he had seen far bigger floods.” In the same quote, Otto also astutely
opined “that this was the most destructive because of greater business and residential
Rowland, Early Years, 214; Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 152-155; Gibson, “Convention Business.”
McMahon, “Degree of Damage;” Daniel McMahon, “Table of Floods: Recorded Floods on the San
Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/290.
76
77
75
development.”78 The long-discussed flood prevention options suddenly became relevant
to people with property in the flood-prone areas and citizens clamored for flood control.
Leaders commissioned plans for a flood control system, but cancelled construction with
the coming of World War II. No devastating floods struck during the war years and as
Sandy Lydon put it, “people’s pants weren’t wet anymore,” so no one bothered to
resurrect the flood control plans until it was too late.79 Santa Cruz, once again, missed an
opportunity to mitigate a major disaster.
That massive calamity occurred on December 22, 1955 when the San Lorenzo
River rose to its highest recorded level and the unprotected riverfront city experienced the
most destructive flood in its history. December 1955 began peacefully enough, as “one of
those nice, open Decembers that we like to think are the normal thing in Santa Cruz,”
according to amateur photographer Howell Rommel.80 After several days of rain late in
the month, the San Lorenzo River rose to its highest recorded level ever on the night of
December 22. The built environment increased the level of danger as debris formed dams
behind bridges at Soquel Avenue and other locations, pushing the water towards
downtown. The river ran down Pacific Avenue at a depth of three to four feet and with a
full-fledged current. Witnesses reported that the street became a “roaring torrent” with
eddies visible at the cross streets.81 The river retraced its floodplain all the way to the
Doug Baldwin, “Highest Flood in 15 Years,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, February 1, 1938; Santa Cruz
Sentinel, “San Lorenzo on Worst Rampage of Century,” February 28, 1940, p. 5.
79
Lydon, “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary.”
80
Howell Rommel (1955 flood witness/photographer), interview by Elizabeth Spedding Calciano, 1973,
“The 1955 Flood,” transcript, UCSC Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, CA.
81
Wally Trabing, “Unbelievable flood turns Santa Cruzans into heroes,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 23,
1955; Rommel, interview 1973, 17, 20-21.
78
76
steps of City Hall on Center Street, more than three blocks away from its most well
known path.82 Christmas presents and decorations from the Chamber of Commerce’s
Christmas window-display contest floated through the streets.
The floodwaters devastated downtown buildings and businesses. Longtime
resident Mayme Metcalf, interviewed by the UCSC Regional History project in 1990
recounted that “it was just as strong a flood as the earthquake was, shaking everything
apart. It just flooded the whole town and all the stores.”83 Indeed, photographs of the area
in the December 29, 1955 Sentinel show Pacific Avenue fenced off and chained up, and
look eerily similar to the photographs published after the 1989 earthquake. Nearly every
business along Pacific Avenue reported damage to their building and stock. The
basements of most Pacific Avenue buildings flooded, ruining hundreds of thousands of
dollars worth of merchandise. The water wrecked the theater equipment at the Santa Cruz
and Del Mar theaters, forcing both to close, the Del Mar temporarily and the Santa Cruz
for good. Other businesses, like the Harris Brothers store at 1212 Pacific Avenue and
Schipper Dillon at 1224 Pacific reported that one to two feet of water lashed their first
floors and buckled the wood floors.84 The receding waters also left behind fine silt and
mud that covered the streets, merchandise, building floors, and in some stores, the walls
to a height of eighteen inches.85 Businesses closed for months to clean up and repair their
McMahon, “History of Floods.”
Mayme Metcalf, interview by ClaireMarie Ghelardi, June 5, 1990, “The Loma Prieta Earthquake of Oct.
17, 1989: A UCSC Student Oral History Documentary Project,” transcript, edited by Irene Reti, UCSC
Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, 2006, 99.
84
Santa Cruz Sentinel, flood photo montage, December 29, 1955, p. 8; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Avenue
damage severe,” December 23, 1955, p. 1.
85
Rommel, interview 1973, 14, 19.
82
83
77
buildings. Some of the clean up included demolition. Building owners tore down and
rebuilt all of the buildings between the Masonic Temple (itself damaged) and the Palomar
Hotel (also damaged) on the 1200-1300 block of Pacific Avenue.86 The Palomar Hotel
itself sustained damage when water inundated its basement, lobby and restaurant. The St.
George added to its disaster narrative once again with an estimated $250,000 worth of
damage done to its rugs, furniture and equipment. The County Courthouse also
experienced yet another disaster as water poured into the basement with such force that
heavy shelves tipped and fell. The waters damaged countless boxes of county records as
the water level in the Courthouse basement rose to ten feet. “The County never planned
on a flood that would reach that area,” remarked County purchasing agent Ed Christensen
in the December 25 Sentinel. Obviously, residents had developed a sense of complacency
about the river.87
After the flood, downtown experienced a long and difficult recovery. The damage
to downtown hotels, restaurants and entertainment venues killed the city’s already
struggling convention industry. The City finally decided to implement flood control
measures, discussed as early as the 1940s and as late as September 1955. In 1956, the
City undertook a beefed up version of an Army Corps of Engineers plan for a system of
86
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 158.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Greatest Deluge disrupts business; river rises again,” December 23, 1955; Santa
Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8 Million,” December 25, 1955; Santa Cruz Sentinel,
photo montage, December 28, 1955, p. 8; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Records in Courthouse are damaged,”
December 25, 1955, p. 12;
87
78
levees.88 The city once again reacted to prevent a disaster after one had already occurred.
The flood control project shifted the city’s attention away from downtown and towards
the new Redevelopment Area created by the project. This area offered a golden
opportunity for urban renewal. The project tore out most of the buildings and streets
closest to the river, including the last remnants of Chinatown on Front Street. A new
suburban style shopping center and office buildings, disconnected from downtown,
physically and stylistically, emerged on the west side of the concreted river. The County
moved its offices out of the drowned downtown courthouse on Cooper Street and into the
new County Government Center on the eastern side of the Redevelopment Area in 1967.
The county’s more mobile population in general focused less on downtown as well.
People lived further and further from the city center and cars facilitated residents’ access
to convenient new shopping centers on the city’s ends and in neighboring Capitola and
Scotts Valley.89
Residents no longer had to shop downtown and when photographers/activists
Chuck and Esther Abbott arrived in 1962, downtown was in a definite decline. “There
were eleven store vacancies in the center of…what’s now the Mall [Pacific Avenue]”
remarked Esther Abbott in a 2003 interview. “You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to
know there’s something vastly wrong if [in] a summer resort…you’ve got eleven empty
stores in the middle of town.” The Abbotts had traveled all over the United States
photographing urban environments and the results of mid-century urban renewal. They
Gibson, “Convention Business;” Ross Eric Gibson, “The Christmas Flood of ’55: Gentle Rain Inundated
Santa Cruz,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/287/.
89
Jones, Santa Cruz, 38; Lehmann, Historic Context, 24.
88
79
brought their beautification over “renewal” message to Santa Cruz at exactly the right
moment. When the Abbotts arrived, city leaders were struggling with what to do with the
faltering downtown that still had not totally recovered from the flood and was facing
increasing competition from suburban shopping areas. The built environment downtown
was changing in response to the flood and to the population’s new mobility with the
demolitions and suburban-style construction occurring within the Redevelopment Area
and the creation of more and more parking lots on the periphery of downtown. Charles
Hall Page & Associates noted that Pacific Avenue when the Abbotts arrived “…was
virtually isolated from the rest of the city, like an island in a sea of parking lots.” Urban
renewal had sailed in to Santa Cruz on the waters of the San Lorenzo River, while
business had sailed out. 90
To combat these changes and to maintain downtown’s character and charm, the
Abbotts advocated for the construction of a pedestrian friendly mall around the existing
historic buildings. Chuck presented slide shows to civic and business groups where he
compared photos of the stark, cold, concrete results of “urban renewal” in places like
Fresno with photos of locations like Carmel where historic architecture and greenery
added to the city’s ambiance and increased business. The Abbotts convinced city leaders
and downtown property owners that turning downtown Santa Cruz into a tree-lined
pedestrian mall would increase business downtown, reverse the area’s steady decline and
90
Esther Abbott, interview by Evelyn Richards, June 2003, transcript, edited by Irene Reiti, UCSC
Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, 2005, 32; Page, Pacific Avenue Design Plan, 4.
80
complete the area’s recovery from the flood. The City started the construction of the treelined Pacific Garden Mall along Pacific Avenue in 1968.91
With the coming of the University and the completion of the Pacific Garden Mall
in 1969, downtown did experience a resurgence, but the like community overall,
downtown property owners got more than they bargained for as the nature-inspired Mall
seemed to attract more longhaired students than traditional shoppers. Mall landscape
architect Roy Rydell and architects Arthur Hyde and Kermit Darrow called on nature to
make the Mall enticing, once again providing an example of how in Santa Cruz, the
natural environment proves to be ever attractive. On the Mall, elements of the built
environment echoed nature. The realignment of Pacific Avenue made the thoroughfare a
one-way street that snaked like a river from Cathcart Street north to Water Street. The use
of geometric shapes, usually hexagons, to form gathering areas complete with benches
and decorative tile work made the Mall flow more naturally than a straight street. Rydell
also incorporated plant life into his design. Raised planter boxes and hanging baskets
housed a variety of trees, plants and shrubs that overhung the street and sidewalks. The
architects chose plants both for their pleasing scents and for their seasonal beauty,
ensuring that something colorful would be in-bloom year-round.92
This arboretum-like urban environment that merchants hoped would woo their old
customers back downtown instead attracted students and hippies drawn to the Mall’s
gathering areas and natural elements. The completion of the Mall occurred at exactly the
91
Esther Abbott, interview 2003, 32.
Wallace Baine, “Remembering ‘The Mall,’” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 3, 2009; Brenda Meehan,
“Santa Cruz Pacific Garden Mall,: A Brief History,” Santa Cruz City Manager’s Office pamphlet,
November 1972.
92
81
time that the city’s dominant group was shifting again and this new group adapted the
Mall’s urban space for its purposes. The students and hippies saw the downtown as the
perfect place to stage protests on the low traffic street, express their political views, and
just gather on the benches under the trees. A lively street scene of musicians, performers
and activists developed on what became the city’s substitute public square and social
meeting place. More conservative longtime residents complained about the presence of
these counterculture hippie types on the Mall, much to the dismay of some merchants.93
Other merchants that catered to the counterculture and a younger audience saw
the development of the Mall and resulting street scene as a downtown renaissance. The
number of these merchants increased throughout the 1970s and 80s as the city completed
the shift from a totally tourist based economy to one split between tourism and the
university. Record stores, coffee shops, nightclubs and restaurants that served students
moved into downtown buildings.94 The St. George Hotel’s old garden court housed the
funky Catalyst coffee shop/bar, a popular hangout. Bookshop Santa Cruz moved into the
Williamson and Garrett Building and provided reading material for hippies and straights
alike. The rehabilitated County Courthouse, now known as the Cooper House, housed a
sidewalk café and several shops. The Teacup Chinese restaurant sat on the Flatiron
Building’s second floor above the decades-old Plaza Bakery. By 1989, these businesses
co-existed with a variety of others, and the downtown Pacific Garden Mall contained an
amalgam of old and new establishments. Some, like Santa Cruz Hardware in the
93
94
Baine, “Remembering the Mall”; Gendron, “Faultlines,” 122-124, 213, 214.
Gendron, “Faultlines,” 125, 214.
82
Hihn/Delamater Building, Penniman Title, and Palace Art and Office Supply, had called
downtown home for a long time. Others, like the Pacific Cookie Company and various
record stores, had only existed for a short time, though most of their buildings had a long
history.
The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake rocked them all as the ground
beneath downtown liquefied once more. The earthquake shook the unreinforced masonry
buildings, now nearly 100 years older than they were in 1906 and most still with no extra
bracing. Like they had in 1906, walls cracked or fell, bricks tumbled, and roofs caved in.
Bricks, plaster, glass, wood and tree branches crashed onto the sidewalk. Shoes, clothes
and books littered the streets, shaken out of their storefronts. A huge cloud visible for
miles rose up as over 100 years worth of dust was thrust out of the cracks. “The great
inconsolable flood plain that downtown Santa Cruz was (and is) built on began to look
like a war zone,” remembered newspaper columnist Bruce Willey.95 Indeed, every block
had at least one building that looked like a bomb had hit it. At Ford’s, a locally owned
department store on the corner of Pacific and Cathcart Street, the roof of the Moderne
building caved in. Up the street, the Pacific Avenue side of the Palomar Hotel displayed
large cracks. Bricks from the parapet of the Hihn/Staffler building between the County
Bank and Leonard Buildings on Cooper Street littered the street below. The second story
of the Klein & Trumbley Building telescoped down onto the first story.
Rescue efforts on the Mall began almost immediately. Bystanders and rescue
workers jumped into the rubble and began pulling out the injured, and at Ford’s and the
95
Bruce Willey, “When the Earth Rolled Over,” Good Times, vol. 35, no. 24. October 15, 2009, 8.
83
Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company, the dead. Lifeguards, public works employees,
members of the California Conservation Corps, U.S. Border Patrol agents, and private
security guards joined city police and firefighters in the search.96 Work continued
throughout the night and into the early morning hours of October 18. Public safety
officials halted the search efforts, concerned about the danger of further collapse due to
continuing aftershocks. Friends of a missing Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company
employee protested the work stoppage and police arrested several who tried to re-enter
the damaged coffee shop building.97 As rescue efforts continued, City officials cordoned
off Pacific Avenue, creating a scene reminiscent of the 1955 flood. Behind the chain link
fences, city leaders, merchants, property owners and engineers began assessing the
damage.
That assessment, and the contentious battles over it, continued for over three
years. It was immediately clear that downtown would be closed for business for quite
some time, but business associations and the City moved relatively quickly to erect the
appropriately named “Phoenix Pavilions” to temporarily house displaced businesses.
What was less clear was what to do about the damaged buildings on the Pacific Garden
Mall. Most dated to the city’s industrial boom years in the 1870s, 80s and 90s. Many
were listed on the National Register of Historic Places as contributors to the Pacific
Avenue Historic District, placed on the National Register in 1987.98 Engineers hired by
the City, the property owners and preservationists disagreed on the level of damage and
City of Santa Cruz, “City Quake Report; a special report to Santa Cruz City Employees” City of Santa
Cruz, December, 1989.
97
Sentinel, 5:04 p.m., 111.
98
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 1.
96
84
whether or not the buildings could feasibly be repaired. In most cases, property owners
and/or the City opted for demolition. The majority of the demolitions happened quickly.
By December of 1989, the City, with property owners’ consent, had already demolished
twenty-three buildings that housed over thirty different businesses.99 The Keeper of the
National Register de-listed the Pacific Avenue Historic District in 1992 because these and
subsequent demolitions, destroyed nineteen of the district’s thirty-six contributors.100 The
demolition of the Trust Building after a March 1992 fire ended a long fight over that
building’s fate and eliminated one more contributor. The property owners, with the City’s
consent and financial assistance, demolished the last earthquake-damaged buildings
downtown in July 1993 when wrecking crews tore down the Elks and Ferrari/Masonic
Hall Buildings, two more contributors to the former historic district.101
These demolitions were the last chapter in many buildings’ disaster narratives.
Unsurprisingly, the same buildings damaged by disaster before once again suffered in
1989, but the Loma Prieta earthquake signaled the end of their existence for most of
them. The grand dame of downtown disasters, the Cooper House, was the first to fall
before the wrecking ball on October 26, 1989. Someone played “Taps” as a solemn
crowd gathered to watch the demolition of the iconic former courthouse.102 The St.
George Hotel, in 1989 a single-room occupancy hotel housing low-income residents as
City of Santa Cruz, “City Quake Report.”
California State Office of Historic Preservation, “Pacific Avenue Historic District Amendment,” March
16, 1992.
101
Kathy Kreiger, “’Spectacular, tragic’ fire draws crowd,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 6, 1992; Martha
Snyder, “Trust Building destruction under way,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 9, 1992. Katherine Edwards,
“And the walls come tumbling down: last remains of quake falling to the wrecking ball,” Santa Cruz
Sentinel, July 7, 1993.
102
Dunn and Hildreth, “Razing Questions,” 33.
99
100
85
well as a variety of businesses, closed after the earthquake damaged its exterior walls,
frame, and possibly its foundation. Preservationists fought hard to save the building, but
the City granted the owner, Barry Swenson Builders, permission to demolish the building
after an October 1990 fire.103 The Hihn (Medico-Dental) Building, partially reconstructed
after the 1906 earthquake, was not repaired this time and demolished within a month of
the earthquake. The Hihn/Delamater building, whose post-1868 earthquake shoring
protected it in 1906, and where Santa Cruz Hardware store owners drilled holes in the
floor to protect merchandise in 1955, fell in 1989.104 The Flatiron Building, survivor of
the 1894 fire, cracked in the 1860s and 1906, and damaged in the 1955 flood, cracked
again in 1989 and crumbled by crane in 1992.105 The Loma Prieta earthquake sounded
the death knell for these and other buildings on every block of Pacific Avenue that had
been flooded, burned, and shaken before.
Property owners and the City clearly had not learned from those previous
disasters because they refused to take steps towards greater earthquake safety before
1989, despite the fact that this time, they knew of the danger and how to mitigate it.
“What happened downtown wasn’t really unexpected,” assistant city planner Joe Hall
told the San Francisco Chronicle in November 1989. By 1989, the City and most
property owners were well aware of the earthquake hazard posed by unreinforced
masonry buildings. They also knew that the buildings could be strengthened to better
resist earthquake damage, but both parties chose not to take much action. After
Guy Lasnier, “Engineers Don’t Agree on Safety of St. George,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 18, 1990;
Greg Beebe, “One blow after another to rebuilding,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 7, 1992.
104
Gibson, “The Christmas Flood”; Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 142.
105
Paul Rogers, “Flatiron will be flattened,” San Jose Mercury News, September 28, 1992.
103
86
earthquakes in Coalinga, California and in Mexico City, California passed a 1986 law
requiring local governments to inventory their unreinforced masonry buildings and
establish loss reduction programs. The State did not mandate that cities or property
owners retrofit these buildings, only that they survey them. Santa Cruz undertook the
survey and identified forty-six vulnerable buildings, twenty-six of which were considered
historic. Alarmed by this and at least ten years worth of other data and studies available
on the seismic vulnerability of downtown, City Chief Building Inspector Dave Steeves
proposed an ordinance in 1987 that would have required property owners to strengthen
potentially dangerous buildings. The City Council, concerned about the economic impact
the expense of the retrofits might have on downtown, rejected the ordinance. To their
credit, after vetoing the ordinance, council members worked with local legislator Henry
Mello to pass a bill that would have provided low interest loans for property owners to
retrofit their buildings. Disaster prevention stalled at the state level when Governor
George Deukmejian vetoed the bill only two weeks before the earthquake. City leaders,
and this time state leaders as well, once again failed to take the necessary steps to
preserve both life safety and the built environment.106
Downtown property owners were equally culpable for the damage and loss of life.
Like the City, property owners also were aware of the seismic threat. In 1977, over ten
years before the earthquake, a City study identified hazardous Mall buildings and
encouraged building owners to retrofit. The City even offered workshops on how to
Rick DelVecchio, Jim Doyle and Lori Olszewski, “Santa Cruz Knew Of Quake Death Risk,” San
Francisco Chronicle, November 27, 1989; Greg Bebee, “Work saved lives,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October
16, 1990; DelVecchio, et. al., “Building Owners Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive,” San
Francisco Chronicle, November 27, 1989.
106
87
finance strengthening costs, but many property owners still considered the seismic work
too expensive. Ten years later, the very public debate over Steeves’ proposed ordinance
brought the issue up again. The Downtown Association spoke out against the ordinance,
again citing economic concerns. The ordinance failed, and property owners continued to
refuse to retrofit their buildings on their own.107
This was clearly a mistake. After the earthquake, former building official Steeves
observed that the downtown buildings that property owners had retrofitted independently,
including the ID Building, sustained only minor damage, while buildings the inventory
tagged as the most vulnerable came down. Retrofitting obviously impacted whether a
building stood or fell, but it also proved to be cost effective. Don Nasser, owner of the
McPherson Building at the corner of Pacific Avenue and Locust Street, told the
Chronicle that the pre-quake retrofitting he performed was well worth the cost. “Very
economical,” he said of the seismic work. “I’m sure glad we did it. It saved out entire
investment.” Nasser’s preparation made him one of the fortunate few whose buildings
survived. Other property owners with less forethought and city leaders, who refused
respectively to retrofit their own buildings or mandate that others do so, yet again missed
an opportunity to mitigate a coming disaster. The Loma Prieta earthquake tore apart those
unreinforced masonry buildings and became one more chapter in downtown’s disaster
narrative.108
DelVecchio, et. al, “Santa Cruz Knew Of Quake Death Risk,”; DelVecchio, et. al., “Building Owners
Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive.”
108
Beebe, “Work saved lives”; Mark Bergstrom, “Roasting Co. files claim against city,” Santa Cruz
Sentinel, April 15, 1990; DelVecchio, et. al., “Santa Cruz Knew It Was Risking Quake Deaths”;
107
88
Loma Prieta marks the end of downtown’s disaster history – for now. The city
rebuilt, as it had so many times before. Today only one haunting hole in the Pacific
Avenue streetscape remains, the last reminder of downtown’s disaster legacy. The post1989 demolitions and reconstruction removed the rest of the buildings that served as
physical evidence of the city’s disaster proclivity. The reconstruction also eliminated the
Pacific Garden Mall when it straightened the street, cut down the trees, took away some
of the benches and restored right angles to Pacific Avenue. Today’s Pacific Avenue is
straighter, newer, still slightly green, and a little less funky, but is it safer? That has yet to
be seen.
DelVecchio, et. al., “Building Owners Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive,” San Francisco
Chronicle, November 27, 1989.
89
Chapter 4
DOWNTOWN SURVEY – BOUNDARIES AND METHODS
…Pacific Garden Mall, a term that those who came after the earthquake will
never fully understand. You had to be there, man.1
This survey inventories the buildings that existed on Pacific Avenue and the oneblock long Cooper Street between Water/Mission and Cathcart Streets before the Loma
Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. The survey provides histories of the buildings and
attempts to describe their pre-earthquake, 1989 appearance. The survey includes most of
the area covered by the Pacific Avenue Historic District, with a few boundary
modifications. As this project evolved from a specific focus on the historic district alone
to a broader survey of the disaster history of Santa Cruz’s central business district, a
boundary change was deemed appropriate. The historic district’s zigzagging boundaries
excluded portions of the Pacific Avenue streetscape, thus also excluding portions of
downtown’s disaster narrative. The Loma Prieta earthquake devastated the entire Pacific
Garden Mall, not just pieces of it as defined by the historic district’s boundaries. The
earthquake totally changed Pacific Avenue and the inclusion here of the buildings
excluded by the historic district’s boundaries relays that portion of downtown’s disaster
history. Buildings excluded by the historic district boundaries, but included in this
survey’s boundaries, either formed a portion of the demolished streetscape, or served as
bookends on devastated blocks. By including these buildings, this survey conceptualizes
the Pacific Garden Mall as a complete unit, as quake survivors and the City of Santa Cruz
do.
1
Bruce Willey, “When the Earth Rolled Over,” Good Times, vol. 35, no. 24. October 15, 2009, 8.
90
To account for that conceptualization, this survey’s boundaries are slightly
different from the historic district’s boundaries. The historic district’s northern boundary
ended at the Williamson & Garrett Building. This survey moves that boundary one
building north to include the Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company building, relevant to
the Loma Prieta earthquake narrative as the site of two earthquake deaths and as the last
somber pit left on Pacific Avenue today (2010). The historic district’s western boundary
line ran along Pacific Avenue, but jumped out into the street in spots, excluding buildings
on the 1500, 1400, 1300 and 1200 blocks. This survey moves that boundary line west to
include all of the buildings on the western side of Pacific Avenue because these excluded
structures formed an important part of the streetscape. Their inclusion adds to the story of
downtown’s nearly wholesale destruction after the Loma Prieta earthquake. Similarly, the
district’s southern boundary ended in the middle of the 1100 block of Pacific Avenue.
The boundary for this survey moves south to Cathcart Street to include Ford’s
Department store, the site of another quake death and where photographers shot some of
the most memorable and controversial quake photos. The southern survey boundary also
now includes a quake survivor on the east side of Pacific Avenue, whose very existence
contrasts it with its demolished neighbors. On the east, this survey actually contracts the
historic district boundaries by moving the survey boundary westward to the east side of
Pacific Avenue, except for a brief jog down the one-block long Cooper Street. This move
excludes several district non-contributors as well as other buildings irrelevant to the
disaster narrative. To summarize, this survey’s boundaries are defined by the intersection
of Pacific Avenue and Front Street on the north, the west side of Pacific Avenue,
91
Cathcart Street on the south, the east side of Pacific Avenue, and the one-block long
Cooper Street.
Methods/Sources
This survey is unique because the majority of the buildings inventoried no longer
exist, meaning that some regular survey methods do not apply here. A walk through the
survey area, usually a first step in an inventory, was of less use here initially because the
buildings this survey describes disappeared after the Loma Prieta earthquake. Instead, the
walk through of the survey area here was more valuable near the end of the process to
determine what replaced the demolished buildings and to gauge the change to downtown.
This survey required a reconstruction of the Pacific Garden Mall, achieved
through research usually undertaken only to provide background information and
building histories. Evidence found through that research provides not only the histories
for this survey, but the building descriptions as well since building descriptions are
normally based on the visual observation of extant structures, a process not possible here.
Maps, photographs, and earlier surveys helped to reconstruct the pre-Loma Prieta Pacific
Garden Mall streetscape. At the beginning, the survey utilized three major sources:
architectural historian John Chase’s The Sidewalk Companion to Santa Cruz
Architecture, on which much of the National Register nomination and other survey data
are based; the Pacific Avenue Historic District National Register nomination prepared in
1985 by Larry Pearson from the City Planning Department; and maps published by the
Santa Cruz Sentinel, one in the Sentinel’s 1989 book, 5:04 P.M.: The Great Quake of
1989, and an updated version of the 1989 map published in the newspaper on the
92
earthquake’s twentieth anniversary. These sources formed the framework for the survey
and allowed for the initial conceptualization of what was where on each block.
Even with these sources, the survey of what existed in 1989, what happened to
individual locations, and what is there in 2010 was more complicated than anticipated.
These sources do not all agree on what building was at each address, which businesses
were in which buildings, or even what structures were considered one building. The
Sentinel’s maps identify the buildings by occupants and on occasion show what was later
determined to be one building as two structures because the building housed more than
one business. The Sentinel also does not use the buildings’ addresses on its maps. The
National Register nomination does the opposite. It lists buildings by their historic names
and includes the name of only one building occupant, discounting the others, and
sometimes, the name of the business the Sentinel associates with the building. The
National Register nomination uses the buildings’ addresses, but most buildings had
multiple street numbers and the nomination does not always link the street number with
the identified building occupant. Chase also is inconsistent. Chase uses either the historic
name or the business name to identify buildings, and rarely, both. Chase also includes
some, but not all, buildings’ addresses. To complicate matters further, the sources leave
out particular buildings that the others include on their versions of the streetscape. The
Sentinel maps only the damaged buildings, while the National Register nomination lists
only the buildings in its boundaries, and again, Chase includes some, but not all, of each,
making it difficult to line up each source’s version of each block. These inconsistencies
made the reconstruction of the streetscape difficult.
93
Fortunately, other sources existed to assist in the process. A map produced by the
city of Santa Cruz and published in its December 1989 City Quake Report helped to
clarify which buildings/businesses were demolished since the report includes both
addresses, business names, and a map. The Santa Cruz County Assessor’s database also
assisted in determining the locations and addresses of buildings, both demolished and still
extant. City directories helped to determine individual businesses’ addresses.
Photographs and building descriptions included in the 1976 Santa Cruz Historic Building
Survey by Charles Hall Page & Associates and the 1989 survey update also helped to
delineate the streetscape.2 When combined with the descriptions and photographs of
individual buildings in the surveys, Chase’s book, the Sentinel and the National Register
nomination, photographs from Santa Cruz Public Libraries’ local history collection and
from UC Santa Cruz’s Santa Cruz County History Digital Collections further aided in
fleshing out the order of the streetscape. The public library has an exhaustive album of
post-quake but pre-demolition photos of individual buildings and partial blocks. Despite
the damage, most individual buildings’ key features and/or business names were still
visible.
Once individual buildings were identified, the block was pieced together using the
individual buildings as landmarks. This allowed for the identification and mapping of
multiple buildings on a block, and for a visualization of what the complete block looked
2
These only helped to a point since most of the survey data drew from Chase’s book or was already
included in the National Register nomination. The photographs included in the surveys displayed only one
building at a time, and again did not include every building on every block, making the identification of
individual buildings possible, but not necessarily delineating the entire block.
94
like. Photos from UCSC’s collection aided in this process. UCSC houses the photographs
of Chuck and Esther Abbott, professional photographers who arrived in Santa Cruz in the
1960s. They photographed Pacific Avenue extensively in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
These photographs provided more information about each block and supplemented the
public library’s collection on heavily damaged blocks and where the library’s collection
lacked photos. The Abbotts’ photos allowed for a visualization of the complete,
undamaged streetscape.3 Newspaper articles, both from the weeks and years directly after
the earthquake and from the quake’s twentieth anniversary and oral histories helped to
complete the resurrection of the 1989 Pacific Garden Mall.
All of these sources also contributed to the survey’s building descriptions and
histories. The survey uses Chase, the National Register nomination, the previous surveys,
the pre and post quake photographs to create descriptions that depict the buildings as they
appeared in 1989, or as close to 1989 as possible. The survey assumes that the earthquake
has not yet occurred and describes the buildings in the present tense. Where building
descriptions from Chase, the National Register, or previous surveys were adequate, or
where a better description could not be produced because of lack of good photographs,
the survey cites the source and leaves the description as is. Several issues complicated the
use of photographs to improve building descriptions. For some blocks, photographs of
The comparison of the Abbotts’ photos with the photos of individual buildings in the National Register
Nomination and in the public library’s collection showed that the Abbotts’ photos would be useful in the
reconstruction process, despite their age. The comparison demonstrated that the buildings and streetscape
had not changed that much in the years since the Abbotts took their photos. The listing of the area on the
National Register meant that the area maintained enough of its early 20 th century appearance for listing,
also showing that the area had not changed significantly between the 1970s when the Abbotts worked and
the 1980s when the district was listed.
3
95
every building could not be located. In some photographs, tree branches and other
elements of the “garden” portion of the Pacific Garden Mall obscure the buildings. This
problem was most evident on buildings’ first stories, so descriptions of Mall buildings’
first floors are sometimes lacking. Other buildings portrayed in post-quake photos were
so heavily damaged that it was difficult to identify them in pre-quake photos.4
Fortunately, good photographs were available for the majority of buildings and the
amalgam of sources allowed for the construction of a better building description than was
available in a single source. Either way, the survey attempts to provide a description most
relevant to the building’s pre-Loma Prieta appearance. The survey treats the discussion of
the buildings’ histories similarly and utilizes the aforementioned sources. The histories
also draw on additional sources like Leon Rowland’s Santa Cruz: The Early Years,
Margaret Koch’s Parade of the Past, newspaper articles, city directories, and oral
histories.
To convey all of this information, this survey uses its own forms that are different
from the traditionally used Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms.
This survey’s forms are based on the DPR 523s, but include additional information
relevant to downtown’s disaster narrative. Since buildings are often associated with the
businesses that occupy them, the forms include the names of the businesses that occupied
buildings in 1989, in addition to the buildings’ historic names. In cases where the 1989
4
This was a problem particularly on the western side of the 1300 block of Pacific Avenue where the best
photos of the block are post-quake photos and where few quality pre-quake photos were found. For
example, I had difficulty locating the Klein & Trumbley Building at 1359-63 Pacific Avenue in pre-quake
photos because I was looking for what I thought (for years!) was a one-story building. It actually was a
two-story building that collapsed to such an extent that in the post-quake photos the building appears to be
a single-story building.
96
occupant could not be confirmed, the survey identifies the business listed at that address
in the 1988 Polk’s City Directory. The forms also trace the survey history of particular
buildings by indicating if the building was part of the National Register district and
previous surveys in 1976 and 1989. The forms also specify if a building was demolished
after the earthquake, if it was rebuilt, and what business or institution occupies the current
building on the site. These new forms allow the survey to adequately trace the changes to
downtown, building by building.
The survey begins on the 1500 block of Pacific Avenue with the Santa Cruz
Coffee Roasting Company building. It inventories the buildings on the west side of
Pacific Avenue to Cathcart Street, then turns and retraces its steps northward to inventory
the buildings on the east side of Pacific Avenue. The survey ends with the three buildings
on Cooper Street. This is the same survey pattern used by Chase and the National
Register nomination. It is used here to achieve consistency with those other documents.
Please see the appendix for the survey forms.
97
Chapter 5
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
As much as we as individuals have been fundamentally affected by our earthquake
experiences in the past, as a society, we find it difficult to make the investment
necessary to win this politically less glamorous ‘War on (Earthquake) Terror.1
As this project evolved, it became a hybrid between a professional presentation
and an academic monograph. These recommendations and conclusions reflect this
combination, with some directed at the professional community, and others meant for
historians and other academics. The professional recommendations center on disaster
planning for cultural resources and are directed at cultural resource managers, urban
planners and decision makers at all levels of government, advocacy organizations, and
the public. The academic recommendations suggest subjects for additional study and
provide both academics and lay historians with food for further thought.
Professional Recommendations
Any disaster planner worth their weight extols that being proactive rather than
reactive is the key to disaster preparedness. As the experience in Santa Cruz after the
Loma Prieta earthquake demonstrates, this principle applies to the protection of historic
resources after a disaster as well. Governments at all levels, advocacy groups, and private
citizens plan for the protection life, housing, transportation and the economy in the event
of a disaster. The protection of cultural resources must factor into that plan as well, not
only to preserve the collective memory those resources retain in their walls, but to protect
all of those more tangible things as well. Whether it is a coffee shop occupied by
Charles Eadie, “Living in Earthquake Country,” Planning, January 2005, 30-32. Mr. Eadie was a city
planner in Santa Cruz in 1989.
1
98
employees, a former luxury hotel now serving as housing for seniors, a historic bridge or
a city’s historic central business district, cultural resources provide housing and
transportation, and sustain life and the economy. Their protection, and the protection of
life safety and the economy, is not mutually exclusive. These recommendations, based on
Santa Cruz’s experience with disaster and historic resources, detail the steps to achieve
that dual purpose of protecting both human lives and human history.
Developing a historic context and an inventory of a local government’s historic
resources is the first step in protecting cultural resources from disaster. Not surprisingly,
this is the same measure that is the lynchpin in any historic preservation plan. Until a
community knows what resources it has and where they are, it cannot plan for and
perform everyday preservation, let alone plan for what to do about historic resources in
the event of a disaster. The inventory must clearly list the buildings’ locations, character
defining features, and histories/significance. The inventory must be easily accessible (on
paper, not just online because electricity and/or internet service may be out), easy to
understand, and readily available to local government leaders like the city manager (or
mayor, depending on the form of government), public works director, and emergency
responders. The state of emergency suspends the normal government process, so these
are the people making the critical decisions during a disaster, not the city council or other
elected officials. Decisions normally made after public notices and hearings are made
without the opportunity for public comment during the disaster period. This “emergency”
period often extends far beyond the days and weeks after the initial event. In Santa Cruz,
the city operated under emergency powers for six months after the earthquake. This
99
makes it even more critical that these leaders be aware of the inventory so that
(hopefully) a building’s historic status factors into decisions about its fate.2
Santa Cruz had an inventory though, and as a National Register district,
downtown’s historic significance was as unambiguous as possible. The city had realized
the economic and cultural value inherent in its historic core, and still lost significant
historic buildings, so an inventory is clearly not enough. Local governments must
incorporate the protection of historic resources into their existing disaster plans. The plan
should establish a process for identifying and evaluating the damage to historic
structures. At a minimum, this plan should mandate that damaged historic buildings
receive an evaluation by a qualified preservation architect or engineer. Ideally, the plan
should include the city’s historic preservation officer, or in cities without such a position,
the staffer with the greatest familiarity with the localities’ historic resources, on the local
government’s emergency management team. This person should coordinate the
identification and damage evaluation process and be heavily involved in demolition
decisions. This person should be well versed in all applicable laws and regulations,
including Federal Emergency Management Agency funding constraints and the use of the
State Historical Building Code for repairs. He or she should be prepared to offer advice
and eliminate some of the confusion over who will pay for what.3 If such expertise does
not exist within the city staff itself, or if city staff will be too busy to perform these
2
John F. Merritt, History at Risk: Loma Prieta, Seismic Safety and Historic Preservation (California
Preservation Foundation, 1990), 20; Richard C. Wilson, The Loma Prieta Quake: What One City Learned.
(Washington D.C.: International City Management Association, 1991), 16-17, 47.
3
John F. Merritt, contemporary California Preservation Foundation president, noted in CPF’s 1990
earthquake debrief publication that confusion over funding sources was a major problem that contributed to
some rushes to judgment after Loma Prieta. See, Merritt, History At Risk, 5-6, 33-35.
100
functions, the local government’s plan must identify private individuals or groups
qualified to offer assistance.
This means that local governments are not the only entities in need of a disaster
plan. Local preservation groups also must have a plan to protect historic resources
because most of the disaster response, at least initially, will be at the local level. As Santa
Cruz City Manager Dick Wilson noted, search and rescue will always be the first priority
of local governments after a disaster and rightfully so. This means though that historic
preservation will not number high on municipal priority lists, as preservationists
discovered in 1989. Private organizations must prepare to fill the void and offer
assistance to struggling local governments in times of disaster. The California State
Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) website offers detailed advice for
preservationists on disaster response and recovery, contact information for people
qualified to offer technical assistance and other excellent relevant information, but local
groups must avail themselves of this and other guidance before disaster strikes. Using
OHP’s site as a guide, preservation organizations must develop a disaster plan and assign
members responsibility for the different recovery tasks OHP recommends that
preservationists undertake. Organizations must determine who will interface with
government officials, who will communicate with the media and what the group’s
message will be, who will distribute the recommended information, and who in the
community, or near the community, has the technical expertise to evaluate damaged
historic buildings. Group members must also use the resources OHP and other
organizations provide to familiarize themselves with building evaluation processes and
101
relevant laws. Local groups, especially those in small and/or rural areas, should also
coordinate with state and national organizations to tap into their resources and expertise
as well. Like any disaster plan, this plan must include contact information for all of these
people, back-ups in case of their absence, and provisions for getting them to the disaster
site. Preservation organization members must also familiarize themselves with the local
government structures and the local government’s emergency plan so that group
members know who to contact and who will be making the decisions during the disaster
period.4
The success of preservationists’ post-disaster historic resource protection
measures, as pre-planned as they may be, still hinges on the decisions made by local
government officials, so preservationists must take proaction a step further. Preservation
group members must cultivate relationships with these local officials and build trust
before disaster strikes, so that decision makers feel that they can rely on the expertise and
assistance provided by these private organizations. This relationship building also notifies
local officials that community members (also known as voters) care about preservation.
Preservationists should meet with local officials before disaster strikes to discuss their
concerns and their ability to aid the municipality during the emergency. Waiting to offer
Wilson, What One City Learned, 37; Steade Craigo, “A helping hand,” in Management of Disaster
Mitigation and Response Programs for Historic Sites: A Dialogue. Proceedings of the Symposium, ed.
David W. Look and Dirk H.R. Spennemann, (San Francisco: June 27-29, 1995). Available at
http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/Disaster_SFO/SFO_Craigo_Hand.html; State of California, Office of
Historic Preservation, “Disaster Response,” Office of Historic Preservation,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25510; State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, “Disaster
Preparedness and Planning,” Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25506;
State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, “Disaster Recovery,” Office of Historic Preservation,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25507.
4
102
assistance until after disaster strikes allows preservation to get lost amongst local
officials’ competing concerns. Steade Craigo, Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
in 1989, noted that experts from his office, from the National Park Service (NPS), and
from non-profit organizations attempted to step-in after Loma Prieta and aid smaller
municipalities, but that the “task was impossible” because the cities had bigger problems
and preservation was not on their radar. Establishing a working relationship with the local
government before a disaster occurs permits preservationists to place historic resources
on the municipalities’ disaster map. These discussions alert the local government that
people in the community care about historic resource preservation and are prepared to
assist. They also show officials that voters will take action post-disaster to save historic
resources with or without cooperation from the local government. The city manager may
not be elected, but an elected body appoints him or her. Ideally though, this pre-disaster
trust building between local governments and preservationists should foster a
cooperative, rather than an adversarial, relationship. The pre-disaster trust building
assures local officials that when an incident occurs, they have qualified, familiar people
to turn to for assistance with an issue that voters care about.
A friendly relationship between local government officials and preservationists, a
solid disaster plan, and an easily accessible historic inventory are not the only elements of
proactive historic resource protection. Santa Cruz’s experience made it painfully obvious
that governments at all levels, preservationists, and property owners must work together
to ensure the retrofit of historic buildings. This strengthening saves not only the building,
but lives. The California Preservation Foundation identified the collapse of unanchored
103
unreinforced masonry walls, parapets, and other ornamentation onto roofs and streets as
one of the top causes of Loma Prieta earthquake related injury and death.5 This was
certainly the case in Santa Cruz. The unsupported walls of the Hotel Metropole and
Williamson and Garrett Buildings crashed through the roofs of Ford’s Department store
and the Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company, respectively. As described on the
buildings’ survey forms, the property owners were well aware of the danger their
buildings posed. They decided that retrofitting was too expensive, and three people died.
The City enabled this outcome by refusing to pass Chief Building Inspector Dave
Steeves’ ordinance or taking other actions to abate the hazards before they became
killers. Mayor Mardi Wormhoudt defended the City Council’s actions, saying, “If you
think about how it was then – and I know it sounds outrageous now because people died
– but there had not been a serious earthquake since 1906.”6 It is outrageous. The fact that
there had not been a major earthquake since 1906 only meant that the next one was
drawing closer every day. The City should have been accelerating retrofitting efforts, not
delaying them. The state and Federal governments should have assisted in these efforts
by providing the necessary leadership and financial support. California’s 1986 URM law
did not require property owners or local governments to retrofit the identified buildings,
demonstrating a lack of leadership on the State’s part. The state and Federal governments
also did not provide adequate funding to assist property owners with retrofit costs.
Instead, they funded cleanup and recovery costs. Had that money been spent proactively
5
6
Merritt, History at Risk, 25.
Mark Bergstrom, “Roasting Co. files claim against city,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 15, 1990.
104
on retrofitting instead of retroactively on demolition, both lives and historic resources
could have been saved.
In sum, Santa Cruz’s experience shows that multiple groups must fight the “war
on earthquake terror.” Property owners must retrofit their buildings to protect both life
safety and historic resources. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, local governments
must step in and require reticent property owners to abate the hazard, the same way
municipal health departments shut down dirty restaurants. The state and Federal
governments must play a role as well; mainly by directing the funding they would
otherwise have spent on recovery towards retrofitting, but also by taking the lead and
strengthening their own legislation. Preservation organizations must work to convince
government officials to do these things. They also must provide the necessary technical
assistance to allow property owners to both make their buildings safer and to preserve
their buildings’ historic fabric. These steps must be taken regardless of the initial
economic concerns, because a disaster is more devastating to the economy than the brief
closure of a building or area for repair. The City Council passed an ordinance similar to
Steeves’ ordinance after the earthquake, but it was too little, too late. As one displaced
downtown restaurant owner said, “If the city fathers and mothers knew there was a public
safety issue, then the downtown should have been shut down and the improvements
made…in the end, that’s what happened anyway. The downtown is shut down.”7 The
difference is, if the “city fathers and mothers” had shut the downtown down before the
Greg Beebe, “Work saved lives,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 16, 1990; Mary Camera, as quoted in
DelVecchio, et. al., “Santa Cruz Knew of Quake Death Risk,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 27,
1989.
7
105
earthquake, Kay Trieman, Robin Ortiz, and Shawn McCormick might still be alive and
the City of Santa Cruz might still have its historic core.
Looking beyond the earthquake danger, the city’s historic fathers and mothers
should never have placed that downtown core in its present location because of the
myriad hazards present there. Downtown Santa Cruz is not unique though. It is one place
among many in dangerous locations. This demonstrates that proactive disaster planning
really should begin with the regular planning process, long before any house is built in a
floodplain or business district on an old riverbed. Whether it is in Mike Davis’ Los
Angeles, Ted Steinberg’s Florida, or in Santa Cruz, when humans disregard nature and
engage in foolish development, they put themselves in harm’s way. The consequences of
these actions are inevitable disasters: fires, floods, and earthquakes that cause billions of
dollars worth of damage and cost human lives. These disasters are entirely preventable.
To avoid future disasters, governments at all levels, and the public, need to factor the
disaster potential of particular sites into their decisions about where development
happens, and disallow construction on dangerous sites. In California, the California
Environmental Quality Act requires local governments to consider some elements of a
development’s disaster potential, such as soil and seismic safety. The law only requires
local governments to study these factors though. Shortsighted and cash-strapped local
governments can, and often do, cite the overriding benefits of a project and approve it
despite the environmental consequences. New development thus continually emerges on
floodplains and on the edges of the fire-prone wildlands.
106
These new developments neighbor existing built environments already extant in
hazardous areas. These developments likely will continue to exist in the same place.
Whether our forbearers were ignorant of the danger or just greedy and stupid, the ship has
sailed on preventing development in many disaster-prone areas, especially in California.
It is unrealistic to expect governments and citizens to relocate homes or entire business
districts now, even after major disaster like the Loma Prieta earthquake. People are
invested in these places, financially and culturally. These areas are where people live,
work, and own property. They have significance not just because they sustain people
now, but also because they are the historic places that have sustained people for many
years. These are places where people have formed communities that they are loath to give
up. Since both these new and old developments already exist in hazardous areas,
government decision makers and the public must take steps to mitigate the danger. This
requires both solid disaster planning and spending copious amounts of cash. If we
continue to allow development in disaster-prone areas and refuse to move out of them,
we – both as a society and as people who chose to live in such areas - must be willing to
spend the money to protect them, whether that involves retrofitting bridges and historic
buildings, requiring property owners in floodplains to buy decent flood insurance, or
mandating that those who live on the rural-urban interface pay higher taxes to support the
necessary fire services to protect their foolish investments. The price of paradise is steep.
Academic Recommendations
Though historians, journalists, a sociologist, and everyday citizens have already
completed a great deal of work on the Loma Prieta earthquake in Santa Cruz, there is still
107
a great deal of ground to cover. Two subjects strike me as particularly interesting and in
need of further study. One is the preservation community and ethic in Santa Cruz County
and its strength. The second is the disparity between the earthquake experience in
downtown Santa Cruz, and downtown Watsonville. One city, Santa Cruz, successfully
rebuilt after the earthquake, but the other, really did not.
The earthquake experience raised serious questions about the strength of the
preservation ethic in Santa Cruz County. This study of the city’s earthquake experience
hints that the preservation ethic in 1989, at least on an institutional and community-wide
level, was relatively weak. The question is why. Why, in a city so obsessed (and
dependent) on selling itself as a quaint paradise with one of the last historic seaside
amusement parks, was the preservation ethic not stronger? Did city leaders just not
realize how cities like Santa Barbara and Monterey have capitalized on their heritage and
that Santa Cruz could do the same? Were the progressives, so interested in natural
resource conservation, afraid that disclosing Santa Cruz’s industrial past as manifested in
its built environment would somehow harm the city’s environmentalist image? Or was
the post-earthquake weakness of the institutional and community preservation ethic an
aberration brought on by the disaster? This is a complicated issue ripe for further study
by historians, political scientists, sociologists and maybe even psychologists, or, better
yet, for all of them together.
A second issue arising from the earthquake and begging for a multi-disciplinary
study is the difference between the earthquake experience in downtown Santa Cruz and
that in Santa Cruz’s southern cousin, Watsonville. The earthquake decimated
108
Watsonville’s historic downtown, but while downtown Santa Cruz rose from the
proverbial ashes, as it had many times before, downtown Watsonville did not. The
explanation for the disparity in rebuilding could be as simple as: Santa Cruz is wealthier.
Its mostly middle and upper-middle class population allowed Santa Cruz to rebuild.
Watsonville is poorer with a mostly working-class and poor population that could not
support the effort needed to bring the downtown back. A variety of other factors could
have played a role as well. Santa Cruz is whiter, with a less transitory population, while
Watsonville is mostly Latino with a large population of farm workers. Santa Cruz also
chose to focus on its downtown instead of its outlying areas, although leaders’ slowgrowth policies offered them little other choice. Whether Watsonville made similar
policy choices that failed is unknown, although judging by the brand-new Target store
built just west of downtown, the city likely did not. This new-age tale of two cities
certainly requires further study, but perhaps with greater historical perspective. It really
has only been twenty years.
These and future projects will benefit from the large amount of material housed at
UC Santa Cruz that unfortunately was unavailable for this study. Future seismophiles
would be wise to access these materials. Seventeen boxes of earthquake related materials
sit unprocessed and unavailable for research at the University Library’s Special
Collections. The Library’s catalog describes the contents as mostly copies of things
available elsewhere, but with seventeen boxes worth of items, there must be something
unique to this collection. Hopefully, Special Collections will soon receive the means it
needs to process this collection and continue their fine work in preserving the
109
community’s history. More materials that are usually available are currently in storage
and inaccessible while the UCSC library undergoes – of all things – seismic retrofitting.
It is unfortunate for this project that the University has these items in storage, but given
the reason for the items’ inaccessibility and the survey and recommendations listed here,
the University cannot really be faulted for that!
110
APPENDIX
Survey Forms
Index of Properties
Address
1549 Pacific Avenue
1547 Pacific Avenue
1545 Pacific Avenue
1543 Pacific Avenue
1541 Pacific Avenue
1537, 39 Pacific Avenue
1533, 35 Pacific Avenue
1531, 29 Pacific Avenue
1527 Pacific Avenue
1523, 21 Pacific Avenue
1519, 17 Pacific Avenue
1515 Pacific Avenue
1415, 11 Pacific Avenue
1405 Pacific Avenue
1387 Pacific Avenue
1369-79 Pacific Avenue
1363, 53 Pacific Avenue
1349 Pacific Avenue
1347 Pacific Avenue
1339 Pacific Avenue
1335 Pacific Avenue
1329, 25 Pacific Avenue
1319 Pacific Avenue
1301-15 Pacific Avenue,
102-10 Walnut Avenue
1229, 33 Pacific Avenue
1213-25 Pacific Avenue
1209 Pacific Avenue
1207 Pacific Avenue
1201, 05 Pacific Avenue
1129 Pacific Avenue
1121, 23, 25 Pacific
Avenue
Name
NR
Contributor
Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company
No
Williamson & Garrett Building
Yes
Compass Rose Building
Yes
Pacific Gas and Electric Building
No
Benten Restaurant/Mr. Goodie’s
No
Amasa Pray Building/Palmer Block
Yes
Tengarra Gift Shop/Earth Angel
Yes
Drennan Building/Block
Yes
Zwerling Optometry
Yes
Hihn/Delamater Building
Yes
Santa Cruz Travel
No
People’s Bank/ID Building
Yes
McPherson Building
Yes
Leask’s/Gottschalks
No
Lucien Heath Building
No
Bernheim/Rittenhouse Building
Yes
Klein & Trumbley Building
Yes
Robert’s Leathers
Yes
Christal’s Drug Store
Yes
The Vault
No
Heinz Biergarten
No
CJ Martin’s/Animal Crackers
No
Bowman Forgery
No
New Santa Cruz Theater
J.J. Newberry Store
Woolworth’s
Rader’s Jewelry and Loans
Discount Records
Van Cleeck/Medico-Dental (Hihn)
Building
Morris Abrams Building
Athletic Express/Gensler-Lee
Diamonds/Pipeline
Demo Page
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
112
114
117
119
121
122
124
126
128
129
132
133
135
138
141
143
145
147
149
150
151
152
153
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
154
156
158
160
161
Yes
No
Yes
No
163
166
Yes
Yes
168
111
Address
Name
1115, 17, 19 Pacific
Avenue
Logo’s Books/Triad Clothing
1111 Pacific Avenue
Hotel Metropole
1101 Pacific Avenue
J.C. Penney’s/Ford’s Building
1100, 02 Pacific Avenue
Pretty Mama
1110 Pacific Avenue
Good Times Building
1114, 16 Pacific Avenue
Heard Building
1124 Pacific Avenue
Del Mar Theater
1128 Pacific Avenue
Bank of America Annex
1134 Pacific Avenue
Bank of Italy (later America)
1208, 10 Pacific Avenue,
105-09 Soquel Avenue
Trust Building
1212, 14, 18 Pacific
Avenue
Hagemann-McPherson/Elks Building
1220 Pacific Avenue
Masonic Hall/Ferrari Building
1224, 1306, 1308, and
Palace Office Supply/Jackson’s
1320 Pacific Avenue Shoes/Phillip Norman/Dell Williams
1330, 34, 38, 44, 48, 52
Pacific Avenue
Palomar Hotel
1360-68 Pacific Avenue
P. Neary Building
1374, 76, 82, 84, 90, 96
Pacific Avenue
Odd Fellows Building
110 Cooper Street
County Courthouse/Cooper House
1502, 08, 10 Pacific
Avenue, 101, 05 Cooper
Street
County Bank Building
1514, 16, 20, 22, 26, 28
Pacific Avenue, 815, 17
21 Front Street
St. George Hotel Building
1534 Pacific Avenue
Plaza Grocery/Zocolli’s Deli
1536 Pacific Avenue
Wells Fargo
806, 10 Front Street
Hugh Hihn/Flatiron Building
115 Cooper Street
Michael Leonard Building
107, 09, 11 Cooper Street
Hihn/Staffler Building
118 Cooper Street
Hall of Records/Octagon
NR
Demo Page
Contributor
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
170
172
174
176
177
178
180
182
183
Yes
Yes
185
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
187
191
No
No
193
Yes
Yes
No
No
195
197
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
199
202
Yes
Yes/
No 209
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
211
216
218
220
224
226
228
112
Address: 1549 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company
1989 Business/Name: Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company
Current Business/Name: N/A
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: No
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1930s
Architect:
Style: Streamline Modern
Description: The Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company Building is a two-story
structure sandwiched between the Williamson and Garrett Building and a 1970s era
office building. The building’s horizontal siding of varying widths and second-story oval
window give it a modern look. The first story consists of a bay display window beside a
recessed entry with two doors set at an angle to each other, forming a sort of triangular
space. Above the entry sits a half-circle overhang.
History/Significance: UCSC student Colleen Crosby opened the Santa Cruz
Coffee Roasting Company at the “Top of the Mall” in 1978. The Coffee Roasting
Company operated out of this building for twenty-one years before the Loma Prieta
earthquake caused the wall of the neighboring Williamson and Garrett building to topple
through the Coffee Roasting Company’s roof. The falling bricks killed two employees,
113
twenty-one year old Shawn McCormick and twenty-two year old Robin Ortiz. Ortiz’s
friends held a vigil outside the building for two days after the earthquake, hoping for her
safe rescue. The Coffee Roasting Company re-opened in the Palomar Hotel after its
repair and this building was demolished. The site of this building, and its neighbor, the
Williamson & Garrett Building, remain undeveloped.8
Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company, “A Brief History of the Roaster,” Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting
Company, http://www.santacruzcoffee.com/sccrctest/pages/briefhistory1.html. Accessed March 10, 2010;
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5:04 p.m. The Great Quake of 1989 (Santa Cruz Sentinel Publishers Co., 1990), 111.
8
114
Address: 1547 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Williamson & Garrett Building
1989 Business/Name: Bookshop Santa Cruz
Current Business/Name: N/A
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: No
Date Originally Constructed: 1899, remodeled 1970
Architect:
Style: Italianate
Description: This is a two-story, brick Italianate commercial building. The first
floor storefront consists of a series of cast-iron columns and large timber-framed
windows arranged symmetrically on either side of the recessed entry. The second story is
brick with three evenly spaced sets of paired double hung windows, each with a
bracketed pediment. A decorative cornice spans the length of the flat roof.
History/Significance: Grocery firm Williamson and Garrett commissioned this
building in 1899 to house their grocery store. While the building was under construction,
M.E. Garrett offered to house the public library on the building’s second floor and
incorporated features into the building to suit the library. The placement of skylights,
light fixtures, arched doorways, closets, and grates all accommodated the library and
created a light and airy space on the second floor. The library operated in the building
115
from 1900 until 1904 when it moved to the newly built Carnegie Library on Church
Street.9
In 1989, the building housed Bookshop Santa Cruz, one of the institutions central
to downtown’s counterculture renaissance. Ronald Lau started Bookshop Santa Cruz in
1966, hoping to capitalize on the student business with the opening of the university.
Bookshop offered more non-traditional reading material that appealed to UCSC students
and other liberal, progressive residents. Lau was successful and eventually bought the
building. The Coonerty family took over the bookstore in 1973.10
During the Loma Prieta earthquake, the building’s north wall collapsed onto the
shorter Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company building next door. After the earthquake,
the city allowed the Coonertys forty-eight hours to remove their stock from the damaged
building. Neal Coonerty’s appeal for help on a local radio station drew 400 volunteers
who entered the damaged building to retrieve the shop’s inventory. The inventory’s
rescue allowed the shop to reopen temporarily in one of the Phoenix Pavilions, then
permanently in the new St. George Hotel building.11
Owner Ron Lau considered retrofitting the building but never got around to it,
despite the fact that small earthquakes would send mortar dust from the walls into the air.
“He was busy with this or that, and the thing dragged out,” said Donald Ifland, the
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 139; Margaret Souza, “The History of the Santa Cruz Public Library
System: Part 2 – 1881 – 1904,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/366.
10
Bookshop Santa Cruz, “Bookshop History,” Bookshop Santa Cruz,
http://www.bookshopsantacruz.com/storeinfo; Rick DelVecchio, Jim Doyle and Lori Olszewski, “Building
Owners Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 27, 1989;
11
Elizabeth Limbach, “Looking Back, Looking Ahead: Neal Coonerty, Bookshop Santa Cruz,” Good
Times, October 15, 2009, 20.
9
116
structural engineer hired by Lau to inspect the building. “I think he was committed to do
the work. If we had gotten a (steel) frame in there, the wall may not have fallen out and
killed the people next door,” Ifland told the San Francisco Chronicle in 1989.12
The Williamson and Garrett Building was demolished and the site remains
undeveloped in 2010.
12
DelVecchio, et. al, “Building Owners Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive.”
117
Address: 1545 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Compass Rose Building
1989 Business/Name: Lulu Carpenter’s (bar)
Current Business/Name: Lulu Carpenter’s (coffee shop)
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1989
National Register District Contributor: Yes, map no. 2
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: Repaired
Date Originally Constructed: 1866, remodeled 1977
Architect: Gary Garmann and Michael Bates (1977 remodel/restoration)
Style: Italianate
Description: This is a two-story brick building with a bracketed cornice across the
flat roof. The remodeled first story has wood framed doors and windows set back from
the sidewalk with a stained glass panel with the business’ name spanning over the inset.
The first floor also features “three cast-iron pilasters” from a local foundry. The second
story has two segmented, arched, symmetrically placed windows.13
History/Significance: Alfred Baldwin, a member of John C. Fremont’s 1846
expedition, constructed the Compass Rose Building in 1866 to house a grocery store. The
second floor was intended to be a hall for use by the neighboring Pacific Ocean House
Hotel. The name “Lulu Carpenter’s” is derived from the name of the dress shop that
operated here in the 1920s and 30s. A remodel in the mid-twentieth century covered the
13
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 139.
118
building with a blank façade and plate glass windows until a 1977 remodel restored the
building’s nineteenth century appearance.14
The roof of the building collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Owner
Burt Rees decided to repair the building instead of demolishing it. “I did not want to walk
away and say, ‘Here, Wells Fargo bank, here’s a hole in the ground,’” Rees told the Santa
Cruz Sentinel in 2009. Two years and $600,000 later, the building reopened as a coffee
shop. Steel beams installed in the building as part of the repair and retrofit anchor the
building’s brick walls, ceilings, and floors to prevent them from collapsing in future
earthquakes.15
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 139; Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-3.
Kurtis Alexander, “Retrofits have made for safer community: Lulu Carpenter’s building example of
county’s massive seismic effort,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 17, 2009, E9.
14
15
119
Address: 1543 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Site of Pacific Ocean House Hotel
1989 Business/Name: PG&E
Current Business/Name: Velvet Underground
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundary
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1938, remodeled 1988
Architect:
Style:
Description: This is a two-story building with a large, slightly arched plate glass
window placed on the first floor between two modern glass doorways. The doorways
themselves are square, but a larger pane of glass tops them, shaped in the same rounded
manner as the display window. Columns topped with decorative ironwork flank the
doorways. A small cement pediment arches above the doorways and the display window.
The second story has two sets of paired vertical paned windows.
History/Significance: This building replaced a portion of the once grand Pacific
Ocean House Hotel, built in 1865-66 by Amasa Pray. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
occupied the building 1989. PG&E retrofitted the building in the 1980s and strengthened
the roof in 1988. The building fared well during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,
allowing PG&E employees to assist in the rescue and recovery efforts. Office Supervisor
120
Dennis Allyn used tools from the utility company’s trucks parked behind the building to
dig an injured woman out of the nearby Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company Building
while other employees and engineers inspected this building. Once engineers deemed the
building sound, PG&E turned the electricity back on so that employees could return to
work and coordinate the utility’s area-wide emergency response effort. This was the only
building downtown with power after the earthquake, making it a popular location for the
press to take photographs.16
16
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 139; Pacific Gas & Electric Company, PG&E and the Earthquake of 1989,
(San Francisco, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 1990), 53-54, 61.
121
Address: 1541 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Site of Pacific Ocean House Hotel
1989 Business/Name: Benten Restaurant/Mr. Goodie’s Antiques
Current Business/Name: Same
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundary
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1965
Architect:
Style: Modern
Description: This one-story building has a completely flat roof that projects
several feet past the storefronts and overhangs the sidewalk. The building houses two
businesses with virtually identical facades on either side of the building’s central pillar.
The glass doorways to both businesses sit on either side of the pillar. Beside the doors are
large plate-glass display windows that form the building’s walls. Two thin, vertical
support columns break up the windows on the left side of the building, while three
identical columns break up the window on the right.
History/Significance: This building replaced the last part of the Pacific Ocean
House Hotel, torn down in the mid-1960s to make way for this building.
122
Address: 1537, 39 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Amasa Pray Building/Palmer Block
1989 Business/Name: Western Vision/Penniman Title
Current Business/Name: Plaza Lane Optometry
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes, map no. 3
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1873, remodeled 1921, 1970
Architect: A.C. Latson
Style: originally Italianate, after 1921, Spanish Revival
Description: The two-story Pray Building originally had exposed brick and
trademark Italianate double-hung windows, but its 1989 appearance dates to a 1921
remodel. The 1921 remodel stuccoed over the bricks and replaced the thin, second-story
rectangular windows with three evenly spaced square windows. These windows have
timber trim, fourteen-over-one glazing, and simple iron balconets. A red-tiled, hipped
false roof overhangs the front of the flat roof. Timber beams divide the building’s façade.
A thick, horizontal timber beam divides the first and second stories. Vertical timber
beams branching off from the dividing beam frames both of the first floor storefronts.
123
The storefronts are mostly plate glass, with timber framed wood panels on either side of
one storefront’s windows and atop the other storefront’s windows.17
History/Significance: Amasa Pray constructed this building beside his Pacific
Ocean House Hotel, which opened in 1866. This building housed S.A. Palmer’s drugstore
for many years and is sometimes referred to as the “Palmer Block.” This was one of the
buildings remodeled in the Spanish style in the 1920s in an attempt to mirror the popular
architecture at the beach and draw more people downtown.18
17
18
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 141 (photo); Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-4, photo.
Chase, Sidelwalk Companion, 141; Rowland, Early Years, 209-210.
124
Address: 1533, 35 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Tenggara Gift Shop/Earth Angel clothes
Current Business/Name: Miss Jessie May’s Antiques/Jewels
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1920, remodeled 1945
Architect:
Style: Spanish Revival
Description: This one story Spanish Revival building has what the National
Register nomination refers to as a “miniature flavor” because of its height relative to its
taller neighbors and the four windows evenly placed above its storefronts that give the
impression of a second story. The building has a false, hipped, red-tile roof projecting
over the front façade and attached to the flat roof in the back. Decorative iron pieces curl
from below the eave of the false roof to the stucco façade. Short, heavy piers separate the
windows on the upper façade while longer piers frame the dual storefronts. An indented
belt course separates the first story storefronts from the upper windows. Each storefront
has a display window and a single entry door.19
19
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-4.
125
History/Significance: This building is one of the buildings constructed on Pacific
Avenue in the Spanish Revival style in the 1920s. Builders at the time used the style,
popular at the time, to imitate the structures under construction at the waterfront. The
building is one of the sole survivors of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake on this block.
The buildings on either side of this building were demolished after the earthquake.
126
Address: 1531, 29 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Drennan Building/Block
1989 Business/Name: Moderne Life/The Gold Camel
Current Business/Name: American Apparel
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1906, remodeled 1972
Architect:
Style: Vernacular/Neo-Classical
Description: The two-story Drennan building is, according to Charles Hall Page
and Associates, “a simple commercial building with classical details: a bracketed cornice
over a paneled frieze including the name of the building, ionic capitals on brick pilasters,
crisply cut window openings, and small paned transom windows over the ground floor
storefront.” The building’s four upper story windows are evenly spaced double hung
windows. The first story houses two businesses with one storefront larger than the other.
The northern storefront has a recessed entry door flanked by two display bay windows.
The southern storefront also has a recessed entry door, but only one display window.20
History/Significance: This building replaced an earlier Drennan building erected
around 1866. Samuel Drennan, the building’s owner, apparently inspired the area’s early
20
Page, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, 87.
127
beachside bathhouses. Drennan and a friend took an impromptu ocean swim in the 1860s.
Their reports of the plunge’s refreshing effects encouraged others to take similar dips and
eventually to erect changing rooms and eventually bathhouses.21
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 142; Rowland, Early Years, 191; Irene Berry and Sheila O’Hare, Santa
Cruz, California, (Chicago: Arcadia Publishing, 2002), 36.
21
128
Address: 1527 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Zwerling Optometry
Current Business/Name: Chefworks
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: ca 1890, remodeled 1929
Architect:
Style: Italianate
Description: The National Register nomination classifies this one-story structure
as “Italianate.” The storefront has a single, recessed, wood-framed glass entry door
placed in the middle of two plate glass windows. The windows’ bases are marble. Above
the windows hangs a horizontal panel of ornate ironwork. A cornice decorated with gold
eave brackets adorns the front of the flat roof. Cast iron Italianate columns frame the
storefront up to the decorative ironwork.22
History/Significance: This building housed the optometry practice of Dr. Bernard
Zwerling for over twenty years before its post-Loma Prieta demolition.
22
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-4.
129
Address: 1523, 21 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Hihn/Delamater Building
1989 Business/Name: Santa Cruz Hardware/Chi Pants
Current Business/Name: Henry Willey Building
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1989
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1868-69, remodeled 1925, 1955, 1971 or 72
Architect:
Builder: Lynch & Gragg
Style: Commercial Italianate
Description: This two-story double building’s façade has two symmetrical halves.
Rounded parapets on each half of the building topped its flat roof. Below the parapets,
the cornice features evenly spaced brackets below a decorative eave and a dentil course.
On the second story, casement windows with three window panels sit on both the north
and south edges of the façade. Two two-paneled casement windows sit between the three
paneled windows, one on each half of the façade. All the windows have a horizontal,
rectangular panel glazed with multiple panes set above them. A 1971 or 72 remodel
added a shingled canopy below the windows that overhangs the first story storefronts and
the sidewalk. The storefronts have wooden doors flanked by picture windows.
130
History/Significance: The Hihn/Delamater Building is one of the many in
downtown Santa Cruz to have a long disaster history. Developer Frederick Hihn and
grocer “Alphabet” Delamater erected the building in 1868 to house Delamater’s grocery
and dry goods store and for Hihn to lease out. Hihn leased his half of the building to
Henry Willey, who opened a hardware store. Willey arrived in Santa Cruz in the early
1870s, after the Great Chicago Fire destroyed his business there. Fire also had an impact
on this building’s occupants. The Hihn/Delamater Building housed Santa Cruz’s first
bank, later called Santa Cruz County Bank, from 1875 until 1895 when the bank erected
a new building across the street. Santa Cruz County Bank’s new building replaced Mike
Leonard’s first building that burned down in the 1894 fire and displaced a different
bank.23
Building financier Frederick Hihn survived several disasters after his arrival in
California from Germany in 1849. Storms destroyed his early businesses in the Gold
Country and in Sacramento, and an 1851 fire decimated his store in San Francisco. Hihn
walked to Santa Cruz after the fire with only a backpack. Upon his arrival, he engaged in
various enterprises from building to lumbering that achieved success. This building was
one of many Hihn commissioned in downtown Santa Cruz.24
While under construction, this building sustained heavy damage in the earthquake
of 1868 and had to be partially rebuilt. The iron “ribbons” added during the
reconstruction allowed the building to survive the 1906 earthquake. The building did not
23
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 142, 91; Rowland, Early Years,188-189.
Stephen Michael Payne, “Felling the Giants,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/85.
24
131
escape damage in 1955 though when floodwaters surged down Pacific Avenue. The
owners of Santa Cruz Hardware, the business operating in the building in 1955, drilled
holes in the floor to funnel the water into the basement and protect merchandise on the
first floor. The ground floor was remodeled after the flood. The remodels did not allow
the building to survive the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Photographs reveal earthquake
damage to both the front and back of the building. Photos of the back show large cracks
and holes in the building where bricks fell. On the front of the building, the bricks around
at least one of the windows tumbled out into the street, crushing the shingled overhang.
The building was demolished by December of 1989.25
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake notes,” April 19, 1906; Ross Eric Gibson, “The Christmas Flood of
’55: Gentle Rain Inundated Santa Cruz,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/287.
25
132
Address: 1519, 17 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Santa Cruz Travel/Graphix
Current Business/Name: Same
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1973
Architect:
Style: Spanish Revival
Description: This one-story stucco building has a false, small-scale second story.
The second story has two casement, multi-paned windows adorned with balconets
trimmed with decorative ironwork. A small, single square glazed window sits between
the two larger windows. On the first story, symmetrical arched doorways sit at the egdes
of the façade, flanking two symmetrical arched windows. A red-tiled, hipped false roof
sits at the top of the false second story.
History/Significance: This one-story Spanish Revival building replaced the
Whidden Building, placed on the site 100 years earlier.26
26
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 142.
133
Address: 1515 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: People’s Bank
1989 Business/Name: Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory (1988)
Current Business/Name: ID Building/Sockshop Santa Cruz
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1910
Architect: William Weeks
Style: Neo-Classical revival
Description: This imposing two-story stone building fills the corner of Pacific
Avenue and Locust Street, with its main façade on Pacific and a secondary façade
running along Locust Street. On the front, four smooth stone Corinthian columns with
square bases support “a massive entablature adorned with lion’s heads.” An ornate
bracketed cornice tops the entablature. The building’s upper story has three sets of two
unglazed double hung windows with “bound sheaves of grain cast into the bronze
window frames.” The first story has two large windows divided into three panes by iron
frames. The windows flank iron-framed double glass doors. The Locust Street façade has
the same upper and lower story windows, but has square Corinthian columns.27
27
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 142.
134
History/Significance: The affiliated People’s Bank and People’s Savings Bank put
up this building in 1910 across the street from where their original location burned in
1894. In 1914, the bank became the Farmer’s and Merchants Bank. The building’s name
derives from Integrand Design (ID), a later occupant of the building.28
28
Rowland, Early Years,189.
135
Address: 1415, 11 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: McPherson Building
1989 Business/Name: Rainbow Records/Yesterday’s
Current Business/Name: Noah’s Bagels/Pacific Avenue Pizza
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No, repaired
Rebuilt: Repaired
Date Originally Constructed: 1868, remodeled ca. 1915, 1976, 1989
Architect: John Perry
Style: (loosely) Mission Revival
Description: John Chase writes that this is “a Mission Revival building
constructed in two sections, one having a segmental curve roofline, the other consisting
of flat-roofed, bracketed stepped levels. The segmental curve roofline of the southern
section is an “inflected” design element leading the eye up and out of the building.” The
northern section of the roof has a Mission-style parapet facing Locust Street. The
northern section’s third story has two double sets of double-hung unglazed sash windows
with half-circle indented parapets on the front, and single parapeted windows on the
Locust Street side. A bracketed fascia separates the second and third stories on the
northern section. The second story has two single double hung rectangular windows
flanking a double window. The first floor storefront has a wood panel with the business’
name painted on it above wood-framed display windows that flank a recessed entry. The
136
southern section’s storefront is largely the same. The southern section’s second story has
two sets of two double-hung windows symmetrically placed in its façade. The circa 1910
remodel added the third story and stuccoed over the building’s original brick, creating the
current Mission Revival look, popular at the time of the remodel.29
History/Significance: Father and son Alexander and Duncan McPherson
commissioned this brick building in 1868. Like the Hihn/Delamater building down the
street, the 1868 earthquake damaged this building during its construction. Builders
reinforced the building with iron bolts and it survived the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes.
Lumberman/merchant Alexander McPherson brought the family to California
from New York in 1856. In 1864, his twenty-four year old son Duncan bought a halfinterest in the Santa Cruz Sentinel newspaper. He moved the Sentinel’s operations to this
building upon its completion and repair in 1868. McPherson produced newspaper here
from 1868-1873, then again from 1879-1938. McPherson used the newspaper to advocate
for a variety of issues from road construction to the establishment of Big Basin State Park
and the exclusion of the Chinese. Upon his death in 1921, the role of publisher passed to
his son, Fred. In total, the McPherson family published the Santa Cruz Sentinel
newspaper for 117 years beginning with Duncan in 1864 and ending with Fred D.
McPherson Jr. in 1981.30
Like the McPhersons before him, Don Nasser, the owner of the building in 1989,
strengthened the building to withstand earthquakes. Nasser spent about $50,000 to retrofit
29
30
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 142; Page, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, 85.
Koch, Parade of the Past, 135, 190-191, Rowland, 206-207.
137
the building’s second and third floors early in 1989. Nasser told the San Francisco
Chronicle that the work was well worth it: “Very economical…I’m sure glad we did it. It
saved our entire investment.”31
31
DelVecchio, et. al., “Building Owners Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive.”
138
Address: 1405 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Leask’s
1989 Business/Name: Gottschalks
Current Business/Name: Cinema 9/Palace/Peet’s
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundaries
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1906, remodeled 1956
Architect: William Weeks
Style: Colonial Revival/Modern
Description: This building consists of two sections. The two-story building has a
flat roof and a very square/rectangular façade. The entire front wall of the northern
section is recessed beneath a stone-tiled overhang. The front wall consists almost entirely
of square mirrored glass panels, separated by a strip of marble tile between the first and
second stories. An aluminum framed double door serves as the entry. The southern
section has no windows on the second story. The second story consists of panels of
scalloped concrete, creating a nearly blank façade that overhung the sidewalk. The first
floor of the southern section on the Pacific Avenue side has five large aluminum framed
display windows around a recessed entry that also consisted of aluminum framed
windows and doors. At the Pacific Avenue/Church Street corner of the first floor is a
corner display window with windows on both the Pacific Avenue and Church Street
139
sides. More of the square display windows continue down the Church Street side of the
building. Around the windows, the building has black marble or concrete tiles.
History/Significance: Leask’s was Santa Cruz’s homegrown department store.
Store founder Samuel Leask Senior emigrated from Scotland and arrived in Watsonville
in 1885. Leask got a job working at Charles Ford’s dry goods, grocery, clothing, and
house wares store and pharmacy (later Ford’s Department Store). Leask owned shares of
the store when Ford incorporated. This allowed him to buy and improve the failed
Seaside Store on the corner of Pacific Avenue and Church Street in 1892.
In 1905, Leask bought more property on the Seaside Store’s block and began
erecting a new building. This building was under construction when the 1906 earthquake
struck. The earthquake delayed the building’s construction when all the available
construction workers and materials went to rebuild San Francisco. Leask had to move his
merchandise and operate his store elsewhere until the building was completed.
Leask continually expanded the business as the city grew. Leask realized the need
for downtown parking early on and encouraged the city to make room for cars
downtown, worried that the increasingly mobile public would shop elsewhere. Leask
bought the lot behind his store in 1928 and turned it into one of the first downtown
parking lots. The store continued to grow and incorporated more and more buildings until
it took up most of the block.
Leask was a civic-minded man who served on a variety of boards including the
draft board during World War I, the school board, and the Road Association, and he was
a staunch supporter of the drive to preserve the forestland that became the core of Henry
140
Cowell State Park. Leask also secured an additional grant from fellow Scot Andrew
Carnegie for the construction of the city’s libraries.32
The 1955 flood damaged the store heavily. Five feet of water flooded the
basement, and silt and mud covered the first floor. After the flood, the Leasks constructed
an entirely new basement for the store.33
The store stayed in the family until the 1980s when the Leasks sold out to Fresnobased Gottschalks.34 After the earthquake, the city of Santa Cruz’s longtime fears were
realized when the department store moved to the Capitola Mall, leaving downtown with
no anchor store since Ford’s Department Store at the other end of the Mall also closed.
Much to the city’s delight, the Cinema 9 movie theater complex went up in the store’s
place, bringing a new kind of anchor downtown.
32
Santa Cruz Old Timers Association, Samuel Leask: Transplanted Scot, Citizen Par Excellence, privately
published, October 11, 1964, unpaginated.
33
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Avenue Damage Severe,” December 23, 1955; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Editorial –
Anniversary of the Flood,” December 23, 1956.
34
Koch, Parade, 135.
141
Address: 1387 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Lucien Heath Building
1989 Business/Name: Limited Express
Current Business/Name: New Rittenhouse building
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundary
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes, as part of new Rittenhouse building
Date Originally Constructed: 1873, remodeled ca. 1940s
Architect:
Style: Italianate/International
Description: A mid-twentieth century remodel heavily modified this Italianate
building that originally had a bracketed cornice and bay windows. The remodel removed
the cornice and left no ornamentation on the building’s flat roof. Metal glazed windows
with awning sashes replaced the bay windows. Two windows intersect at the corner of
the building. The wall surface is smooth and unornamented except for two thin horizontal
lines that stretch between the Pacific Avenue windows. A tile frieze separates the second
story from the first floor storefront. The storefront has a recessed entry and plate glass
display windows.35
35
This description is based on the best photo available, a 1971 shot in the Chuck and Esther Abbott
Collection at UC Santa Cruz and a circa 1940 photo in the Santa Cruz Public Libraries’ local history
collection.
142
History/Significance: This building originally housed Lucien Heath’s hardware
store. Heath came to Santa Cruz in the 1860s after serving a term as Oregon’s first
secretary of state. Heath also served as the president of Santa Cruz County Bank, and two
terms in the state legislature. The building later served as Horsnyder’s drug store.36
The Santa Cruz Weekly Sentinel in 1906 credited Heath’s occupation as a
hardware merchant as the reason that the store survived the earthquake with little
damage. The Weekly Sentinel noted that merchant used some of his own wares to
strengthen the store with “many ribbons of iron” that held the building up during the
earthquake. The building was not so fortunate in 1989 and was demolished.37
Koch, Parade, 200; Rowland, Early Years,189; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “125 Years of Caring,” October 17,
2009, E19, advertisement.
37
Santa Cruz Weekly Sentinel, “Local News,” April 28, 1906. The Weekly Sentinel was also published by
Duncan McPherson.
36
143
Address: 1369-79 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Bernheim/Rittenhouse Building
1989 Business/Name: Offices/Body Options/Angelica’s
Current Business/Name: New Rittenhouse Building
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1875, remodeled 1882, 1920s, 1951
Architect:
Style: originally Italianate, later Spanish Colonial Revival
Description: The two-story building has a mostly smooth stucco surface, likely
dating to the 1920s remodel. The flat roof has a very short parapet. Below the roof, the
building has four casement windows on the second story with subtle window surrounds
and rounded pediments. A tile fascia separates the second story from the first story
storefronts. The first floor storefronts are difficult to see in the photos, but according to
the National Register nomination, their look dated to the 1951 remodel.38
History/Significance: Jewish pioneer Jacob Bernheim commissioned this building
in 1875 for his dry-goods business. Bernheim emigrated from Prussia in 1857 and arrived
in Santa Cruz in 1864 after briefly trying his hand at mining. Bernheim’s business was
one of the first department stores in Santa Cruz where Margaret Koch says,“you could
38
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-5.
144
buy just about anything” since Bernheim sold dry goods, clothing and groceries. The
building’s second floor served as a social hall and performance venue.39
The Bernheim Building sustained damage in both the 1906 earthquake and 1955
flood. The Weekly Sentinel did not specify the exact damage after the 1906 earthquake,
but the earthquake shook enough of the building down that the building required “solid
timber bracing on the Avenue frontage.” The Rittenhouse family, owners of the building
in 1955, reported a loss of $700 in stock from their ground floor clothing store when
water poured through the store during the 1955 flood. The Rittenhouses demolished the
building after the 1989 earthquake.40
Ross Eric Gibson, “Jewish Pioneers Played a Big Role in Santa Cruz,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/121; Koch, Parade, 51.
40
Santa Cruz Weekly Sentinel, “Local News,” April 28, 1906; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in
Downtown $1.8 million,” December 25, 1955.
39
145
Address: 1363, 53 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Klein & Trumbley Building
1989 Business/Name: Lily Marlene’s/Shockley’s
Current Business/Name: Rittenhouse Building
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1890, remodeled 1922, 1945
Architect:
Style: Mission Revival
Description: The heavy damage to this building and the lack of quality pre-quake
photos make describing this building difficult. The National Register Nomination
describes it as:
A two-story building with thin Moorish columns framing second-story windows.
The ground floor has an indented Victorian entryway featuring a stained-glass
canopy. Building façade was substantially remodeled (c. 1922) in Spanish styling.
Subsequent alterations to ground floor in 1945.41
History/Significance: Roudell’s Tavern, housed in the 1353 portion of the
building, sustained major damage in the 1955 flood.42
41
42
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-5.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8 million,” December 25, 1955.
146
This building was one of the most heavily damaged buildings in the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake as well. The second story collapsed entirely, both out onto the street
and onto the first floor. The post-quake photos make it difficult to believe this building
was once a two-story building.
147
Address: 1349 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Robert’s Leathers
Current Business/Name: Paper Vision
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1890s, remodeled ca. 1920 and 1959
Architect:
Style: Moderne/Contemporary
Description: “One-story commercial building with an arched façade added in the
1920s remodeling” that is slightly reminiscent of a Mission-style parapet. “Cast iron
columns remain at the edges.” Three plate glass windows, added in the 1959 remodel,
flank a recessed, single-door entry. Timbers frame the windows that are placed above a
wide wooden base. A small overhang shadows the sidewalk.43
History/Significance: In 1955 this building housed Roudell’s Coffee Shop, which
like its sister tavern next door, was severely damaged by the 1955 flood.44
43
44
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-6.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8 Million,” December 25, 1955.
148
Again like its neighbor, this building sustained heavy damage in the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake. The arched segment of the pediment and part of the roof collapsed.
The building was demolished after the earthquake.
149
Address: 1347 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Christal’s Drug Store
1989 Business/Name: Revelation
Current Business/Name: Paper Vision
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1883, remodeled 1971.
Architect:
Style: Vernacular/Neo-Classical
Description: A large awning and the Pacific Garden Mall’s vegetation obscure
this building. Chase describes the building as, “a one-story building constructed prior to
1883…the cornice is hidden beneath an awning, but the cast iron columns, manufactured
at the Pacific Avenue ‘Santa Cruz Foundry’ could still be glimpsed.” The National
Register Nomination adds, “upper façade remains intact behind awning; window
modifications, 1971.”45
History/Significance: James F. Christal’s drugstore first occupied this building,
then J.H. Horsnyder moved his drugstore in. The mattress division of Ford’s Department
Store occupied the shop in the 1970s and 80s.
45
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 145; Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-6.
150
Address: 1339 Pacific Avenue
1989 Business/Name: The Vault
Current Business/Name: Same
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1979
Architect:
Style: Spanish Revival
Description: Vegetation obscures this building in the photos. The National
Register describes it as, “a two-story new building with a vaguely Spanish flavor; earth
tone stucco finish.”46
History/Significance: This building and its neighbor replaced the Jackson Sylvar
building that burned in a 1972 fire.47
46
47
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-16.
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 145.
151
Address: 1335 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Heinz Biergarten
Current Business/Name: Starbucks’
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1977
Architect:
Style: Chateauesque
Description: This building’s distance from the street makes it difficult to see in
the photos. The National Register Nomination describes it as, “a one-story, flat-roofed
cement block building with peaked false front. Building is set back from sidewalk,
providing outdoor eating area. Neo-chalet treatment echoes German biergarten function.”
The building’s false front has a short front gable and wide bracketed eaves. The building
has timber-framed plate glass windows.48
History/Significance: Site of the Jackson Sylvar building that was razed after a
Christmas Eve 1972 fire.49
48
49
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-16.
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 145.
152
Address: 1329, 25 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: CJ Martin’s women’s clothes/Animal Crackers
Current Business/Name: Camouflage/Bead It
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1973
Architect:
Style: Mission Revival/Contemporary
Description: This one-story, flat-roofed, double building has symmetrical,
identical storefronts. Each storefront has a timber-framed bay display window topped by
an arched cutout in the overhanging stucco façade. Single entry doors stand beside the
windows.
History/Significance: Erected after a 1972 fire destroyed part of this block.
153
Address: 1319 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Bowman Forgery
Current Business/Name: Pacific Thai
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1973
Architect:
Style: Spanish Revival
Description: The National Register Nomination describes this as “a two-story,
neo-Spanish building with an arched window reaching to the second floor. Stucco finish;
black wrought-iron railing on second floor.” The building has a cantilevered hipped, redtile roof. Two iron light fixtures flank the arched window on the second story.50
History/Significance: Like its neighbor, erected to replace a building that burned
in a 1972 fire.
50
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-16.
154
Address: 1301-15 Pacific Avenue, 102-10 Walnut Avenue
Historic Name: New Santa Cruz Theater
1989 Business/Name: Togo’s/Changes women’s clothes
Current Business/Name: Swirl/Super Silver
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1920, remodeled 1939-40, 1976
Architect: Reid Brothers (1920), Alexander A. Cantin (1939-40), Paul E. Davis (1976)
Style: Art Moderne
Description: On the Pacific Avenue side, the southernmost portion of this twostory stucco building has a deeply recessed entry door surrounded by rectangular metalframed windows. Next to these windows a modern commercial glass door sits beside a
wood-framed bay display window. A second display window and door to the north
constitute the rest of the first floor Pacific Avenue façade. The stepped second story has a
Moderne tower at the corner of Pacific Avenue and Walnut Avenue and a second tower
in the middle of the Pacific Avenue side. The second story also has five unglazed
casement windows on its smooth stucco façade between the two towers, which each
contain their own window. The building has three more windows are on the upper part of
its façade, and four more windows on the lower part, separated by vertical fluting. A
horizontal band separates the first and second stories. The main entrance to the theater
155
was below a stepped parapet with more vertical fluting. The 1976-77 remodel removed
the tower and marquee above the entrance.
History/Significance: The Reid Brothers of San Francisco originally designed the
theater with an entrance on Pacific Avenue beneath a vertical sign that said “Santa Cruz.”
The firm also designed the Hotel del Coronado on Coronado Island in San Diego County
and the first Fairmount Hotel in San Francisco (destroyed by the fire that followed the
1906 earthquake). The 1939-40 remodel moved the entrance and parapet to the Walnut
Avenue side. The remodel also added a marquee, a neon-lit Moderne tower topped with
stars and moons and vertical fluting, at one time illuminated by neon.51
The theater was an element of St. George Hotel owner Fred Hotaling’s plan to
draw tourists away from the thriving beachfront and back downtown. The theater for a
time was the largest and most lavish theater in Santa Cruz until the more opulent Del Mar
Theater opened down the street in 1936. At that time, the New Santa Cruz Theater
dropped the “New” from its name.52
On the night of December 22, 1955, the river’s floodwaters flowed down Walnut
Avenue and into the theater’s lobby. The basement flooded and the water ruined the
theater’s equipment. The flood ended the building’s life as a theater and it became a
conglomeration of shops and cafes.53
51
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 147.
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 153; Ross Eric Gibson, “Santa Cruz Has Long History of Convention
Business,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/353/.
53
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 147; Gibson, “Convention Business”; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial
Damage in Downtown $1.8 million,” December 25, 1955.
52
156
Address: 1229-33 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: J.J. Newberry store
1989 Business/Name: Woolworth’s
Current Business/Name: World Bazaar/Graphix
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundaries
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1938
Architect:
Style: Streamline Moderne
Description: This one-story, flat-roofed building’s façade is divided into two
portions, a smooth surfaced upper portion and a lower portion with plate glass, aluminum
framed storefront display windows. The smooth, blank upper façade consists of tiles with
a metallic sheen. The name “Woolworth’s,” spelled out in red plastic block letters, hangs
on the tiles. The upper portion has a rounded edge on the corner.
History/Significance: This was the site of the Alta Building, one more building
constructed for Frederick Hihn. This building replaced the Alta Building in 1938 and
housed the J.J. Newberry store, a five and dime variety store. Woolworth’s bought the
157
building in 1959 and expanded into it from the building next door. Woolworth’s closed
all of its stores, including this one, in 1997.54
The owners of the Newberry store reported severe losses in their basement during
the flood of 1955. Flood survivor Howell Rommel reported that the merchants put boxes
and boxes of muddy merchandise not worth salvaging out on the street the day after the
flood. On January 2, 1956, over a week after the flood, a Sentinel photograph showed
shin-deep water with boxes and merchandise floating in it in the basement.55
54
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 148; Plaque on the northwest part of the building on the Walnut Street side.
Howell Rommel, interview by Elizabeth Spedding Calciano, 1973, “The 1955 Flood,” transcript, UCSC
Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, CA; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8
Million,” December 25, 1955, 1; Santa Cruz Sentinel, photograph, page 2, January 2, 1956.
55
158
Address: 1213-25 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Woolworth’s
1989 Business/Name: Gap
Current Business/Name: Gap
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundaries
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1929, 1956
Architect: MacDonald & Kahn, William Wurster
Style: Italianate/Contemporary
Description: This one-story building retains some of the features of the original
1929 Woolworth’s store, most notably its division into lower storefront with display
windows and upper portion with the business name. The building has the original cornice
with its dentil molding. The building also has decorative details that resemble large
exclamation points on the columns on its edges. A horizontal band connects the columns
and separates the upper and lower facades. The upper portion of the building is smooth
stucco, while frameless plate glass windows comprise the lower story.
History/Significance: This building was the original site of the Woolworth’s
downtown store. The Moderne façade of the building next door extended to this building
as late as the 1970s while Woolworth’s occupied both structures. By the time of the
159
Loma Prieta earthquake, Woolworth’s had contracted and occupied only 1229-33 Pacific
Avenue while the Gap clothing store occupied this building.
Woolworth’s, still in this building in 1955, reported heavy damage to their
basement after the December flood. The Sentinel reported that the water rose to the
basement ceiling and a photo taken over a week after the flood showed shelves, boxes
and merchandise thrown all over the store’s basement. One year later, the Sentinel noted
that Woolworth’s had completely remodeled the store as a result of the flood.56
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8 Million,” December 25, 1955; Santa Cruz
Sentinel, photograph, page 7, January 2, 1956; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Editorial – Anniversary of the Flood,”
December 23, 1956.
56
160
Address: 1209 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Rader’s Jewelry and Loans
Current Business/Name: Motiv club
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundaries
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1900, remodeled ca. 1950
Architect:
Style: Italianate
Description: No photo or description from 1989 available. In 2010, the building is
a two-story structure with a ground floor storefront. The storefront has a slightly recessed
entry door that is glass framed in metal. One timber post sits beside the entry while
another post sits at the edge of building. Between the posts are four unglazed metalframed windows. The upper story is stucco with three shuttered windows.
History/Significance: F.A. Hihn likely erected this building around the same time
he put up the neighboring Medico-Dental Building. This building housed Reeve’s Shoe
store in the mid-20th century when the building had a flat façade covering its front.
161
Address: 1207 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Discount Records
Current Business/Name: Joe’s Pizza and Subs
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundaries
Demolished: No, repaired
Rebuilt: N/A, repaired.
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1900
Architect:
Style: Spanish Revival
Description: This one-story false front building is slightly Spanish in style with its
false hipped, red-tile roof and bracketed eaves. The building’s top portion is smooth
stucco and unadorned except for the name of the business. The bottom portion of the
building today is a modern glass door and windows, but no good photo or description of
the building’s first floor in 1989 could be located. Its design is reminiscent of the Santa
Cruz Travel and United Cigar buildings on the 1500 block of Pacific Avenue.
History/Significance: The front of this building caved in during the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake when bricks from the adjoining, taller Medico-Dental Building fell
through the roof. Quinton Skinner, an employee of Universes Records across the street,
reported that it looked like the whole front of this building had collapsed, but fortunately,
the employees of this store were able to escape through the back. The same man owned
162
both this record store and Universes in the Elks Building (where Skinner worked). He
was able to consolidate his stock into one store and reopen in this building when its
owner completed repairs. Discount Records survived for seven more years after the
earthquake and closed in 2006.57
Quinton Skinner, interview by Jonathan Shapiro, 1989, “The Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989: A UCSC
Student Oral History Documentary Project,” transcript edited by Irene Reiti UCSC Regional History
Project, Santa Cruz, CA, 2006, 52-53.
57
163
Address: 1201, 05 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Van Cleeck Building/Medico-Dental (Hihn) Building
1989 Business/Name: Sparkle, Gergen’s Hallmark, Clayton’s Royal Dry Cleaners, 2nd
floor offices
Current Business/Name: Pacific Cookie Company/Om Gallery
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1894, remodeled 1906, 1938, 1960
Architect: Edward Van Cleeck
Style: Eastlake
Description: This is a “two-story brick building with curved Eastlake brackets
and dentil-course cornice at the top of the first and second stories.” At the corner of the
building at Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Street, and at the back of the building on Lincoln
Street, it has, as Page & Associates writes, “corbelled octagonal corner bays [with] squat
domes.” The upper story has three double hung unglazed sash windows on the Pacific
Avenue side and an undeterminable number on the Lincoln Street side. The domes have
similar windows. All of the windows have fluted surrounds and the widely spaced
pilasters have sunburst capitals. The first floor on the Pacific Avenue side has plate glass
window storefronts. The Lincoln Avenue side has a windowless surface with a
164
rectangular relief panel and a single door towards the back of the building. Stucco or
plaster covered the building’s bricks.58
History/Significance: Frederick A. Hihn constructed this building 1894 and it
sustained heavy damage soon after in the 1906 earthquake. The Sentinel reported on
April 18, 1906 that the building was badly damaged: “the upper story of its back wall is
ready to fall; all the walls are badly cracked.” Hihn decided to repair the building, and by
April 19, repairs were underway. “The rear end of the Hihn Building…has been torn
down, and loads of bricks are on the ground for repairs,” the Sentinel wrote on April 19.
The Weekly Sentinel assured readers a few weeks later that the repairs would strengthen
the building for the future: “The Hihn Co. will not rest satisfied until the building is made
safe. They will make it stronger than ever before.”59
The strengthening apparently was not enough because the building fell once again
in 1989. Bricks from this building fell onto the adjoining Discount Records store, caving
in the front portion of that store. Witness Quinton Skinner reported that the Hallmark
store in this building looked like it had caved in as well. A portion of the wall on the
Lincoln Street side of the building collapsed out into the street, revealing the contents of
offices on the first and second floors. The dentil-course looked like it had been peeled
away from this tear and beyond. Cracks in the building’s plaster and stucco exposed the
bricks underneath. The gaping hole in the building’s side through which intact office
furniture could be viewed made the building a media darling and it was one of the most
Chase, as quoted in Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-7; Page, Santa Cruz Historic Building
Survey, 83.
59
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Most Terrible and Destructive Earthquake,” April 18, 1906; Santa Cruz Sentinel,
“Earthquake Notes,” April 19, 1906; Santa Cruz Weekly Sentinel, “Local News,” May 5, 1906.
58
165
photographed after the earthquake. President George H.W. Bush chose this dollhouse like
scene to be the backdrop for his comments to the media during his visit. The building was
demolished within two weeks of the Loma Prieta earthquake.60
F.A. Hihn’s great-granddaughter Gloria Hihn-Welsh erected the current building
on the site in 1994.61
Guy Lasnier, “City Hit with Damage Claim Over Building Demolition,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 24,
1990; Tom Long, “Inspectors Assess Ravaged Mall,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, November 1, 1989.
61
Plaque on building’s corner at Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Street.
60
166
Address: 1129 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Morris Abrams Building
1989 Business/Name: Lily Wong’s
Current Business/Name: Sitar Indian restaurant/Cold Stone Creamery
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1937
Architect: C.J. Ryland
Style: Streamline Moderne
Description: This one story building has a windowless upper façade and a ground
floor storefront. In a 1989 photo, a fence obscures the storefront, but in 1970 the
storefront consisted entirely of aluminum-framed ground to upper façade windows and a
recessed entry. The building turns the corner from Pacific Avenue onto Lincoln Street.
The corner is almost entirely rounded and consists of a panel that the Lincoln and Pacific
walls meet at 100-degree angles. The upper façade is comprised of smooth square tiles.
The building has three horizontal stripes that wrap around the building on the bottom of
the upper façade. A raised panel of tiles spans the Pacific Avenue storefront entry and
obscures the stripes in that section.
History/Significance: One-time traveling salesman Morris Abrams started a store
billed as “The Poor Man’s Friend’s Store” on this corner around 1900. After achieving
167
success selling discount and secondhand merchandise, Abrams commissioned this
building in 1937 to house the store. Eventually, the Abram’s Store shifted his focus away
from the secondhand business and offered finer men and women’s clothing. After the
1955 flood, the store lost a huge stock of clothing to the floodwaters. A “flood sale”
advertisement in the Sentinel on January 1, 1956 reported that twenty inches of water
inundated the store during the flood.62
Koch, Parade, 227; Berry and O’Hare, Santa Cruz, 78; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage to
Downtown $1.8 Million,” December 25, 1955; Santa Cruz Sentinel, advertisement, January 1, 1956.
62
168
Address: 1121, 23, 25 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name:
1989 Business/Name: Athletic Express/Gensler-Lee Diamonds/Pipeline
Current Business/Name: Vacant/Shogun/Skateworks.
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1910, remodeled 1937, 1956
Architect:
Style: Spanish/Moorish Revival
Description: This one-story building houses three stores in three bays. The
building has a Moorish frieze that consists of arches framing Islamic ornaments. The
fascia below the frieze has rosettes flanking rectangular molding. The bay at 1121 retains
the original façade with a course of windows surrounded by arches that duplicate the
arches of the Moorish frieze on a larger scale. The bay at 1125 covers these windows
with stucco and the store’s sign. The store at 1123, Gensler-Lee Diamonds, has a modern,
smooth façade and overhang placed over the building’s original Moorish façade on its
bay. The National Register nomination lists “significant storefront alterations to the right
169
half of the building in 1956,” but the damage in post-quake photos and a dark pre-quake
photo make the lower façade difficult to discern.63
History/Significance: The 1956 renovation likely occurred because of the 1955
flood. The building next door was one of the most heavily damaged on the street, so this
building probably sustained great damage as well, though the Sentinel did not report on
this building’s fate in the days after the flood.64 The building’s roof collapsed during the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and the building was subsequently demolished.
63
64
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-7.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage to Downtown $1.8 Million,” December 25, 1955.
170
Address: 1115, 17, 19 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name:
1989 Business/Name: Triad Clothing/Logo’s Books
Current Business/Name: Logo’s Books
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1989
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: ca.1910, remodeled 1970.
Architect:
Style: Renaissance Revival
Description: This is, as the National Register Nomination says, a “two-story
Renaissance Revival structure crowned with slate [faux] mansard roof and bracketed
cornice.” Five double sets of double-hung unglazed sash windows adorn the second story.
Stone panels with horizontal indented molding separate each window set. Indented
molding in a more elaborate pattern tops each individual window. The ground floor
consists of three storefronts, each with a recessed entry and modern aluminum framed
windows dating to the 1970 remodel.65
History/Significance: This building was one of the most heavily damaged
buildings during the 1955 flood. Dell Williams jewelers, the tenant at the time, reported a
huge loss in watches, jewelry, fixtures, and in the building itself. The building was
65
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-7.
171
repaired, but Dell Williams eventually moved into a new building on the 1300 block of
Pacific Avenue. Logo’s Books, a used book store serving the university community,
moved in shortly after.66
66
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage to Downtown $1.8 Million,” December 25, 1955.
172
Address: 1111 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Hotel Metropole
1989 Business/Name: Plaza Books/Paper Vision
Current Business/Name: University Towne Center
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1908, remodeled 1953
Architect:
Style: Commercial Italianate
Description: This three-story building has a flat roof with a stepped parapet over a
bracketed cornice with dentil molding. The paired, double-hung windows are surrounded
by pilasters and have “projecting lintels” with a keystone in the middle of the lintel. The
third story windows have half-circle pediments on the middle two window sets and
triangular pediments on the outer two window sets. A solid masonry belt course separates
the first and second stories. The ground floor storefronts have a horizontal stained glass
canopy above their display windows.67
History/Significance: John Chase notes that “Kate Handley’s Millinery Shop was
on the ground floor for a number of years. She was known as dean of Santa Cruz
businesswomen, having operated her shop from the 1870s until the 1940s. The hotel had
67
Page, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, 82.
173
forty-eight rooms that originally rented for fifty cents a day.” The hotel building also
housed the San Francisco-based City of Paris department store starting in 1909, then the
National Dollar Store beginning in 1934, and finally Plaza Books in 1973.68
Like Bookshop Santa Cruz, Plaza Books was another shop targeted at college
students that heralded downtown’s transition to university/hippie haven. Harold Morris
started the bookstore in 1963, anticipating the uptick in business that the university would
bring. He bought the Hotel Metropole in 1976 and opened Paper Vision, a poster shop
and publishing firm next to the bookstore. The City had condemned the second and third
floors of the building in the 1960s and in 1977 advised Morris to undertake $80,000
worth of retrofitting necessary to allow the building to withstand an earthquake. Morris
was unsuccessful in obtaining a low-interest Federal loan for the strengthening and
neglected to perform the work.69
During the 1989 earthquake, the southern wall of the Hotel Metropole fell onto
the adjoining Ford’s Department Store, collapsing much of that building’s roof. The
collapse killed seventy-five year old Kay Trieman and seriously injured another patron.
The Hotel was demolished shortly after.
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 150; Ross Eric Gibson, “Architect’s Row,” plaque on southwest corner of
the University Towne Center building.
69
DelVecchio, et. al., “Building Owners Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive.”
68
174
Address: 1101 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: J.C. Penney Building
1989 Business/Name: Ford’s Department Store
Current Business/Name: University Towne Center
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundary
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1946
Architect: William Wurster
Style: Art Deco
Description: Ford’s is a one-story building with a flat roof with a false front on
the right side of its front façade. The façade turns at a 90-degree angle to create a side
parapet. The left side of the façade is recessed and the recessed wall angles to meet the
back of the side parapet. An overhang spans the front of the recessed façade. Beneath the
overhang are plate glass display windows.70
History/Significance: Local architect William Wurster designed this building for
J.C. Penney’s department store in 1946. Like local department store Leask’s, Penney’s
was an anchor store for the downtown area. Penney’s announced plans as early as 1974 to
move to the new Capitola Mall, reflecting a national trend of department stores relocating
Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5:04 p.m., 55; KGO-TV/ABC-7 News, “News report from downtown Santa Cruz,”
posted on the Exploratorium’s “Faultline: Seismic Science at the Epicenter” website,
www.exploratorium.edu/faultline/activezone/media/vid-santacruz.html.
70
175
from downtown cores to suburban malls. In 1981, Watsonville based department store
Ford’s moved into the building vacated by Penney’s. The store was the legacy of Charles
Ford, a sickly forty-niner who arrived in Watsonville in 1852. Ford started a small store
that eventually grew into a twelve-store department store chain.71
The wall of the adjoining Hotel Metropole building collapsed onto Ford’s roof
during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. It killed Kay Trieman; a seventy-five year old
grandmother who had stopped at Ford’s to buy some slacks before visiting her husband in
the hospital. After the earthquake, bystanders jumped into the rubble and rescued store
clerk Edith Dominguez. The Sentinel caused an uproar when it published a graphic photo
of the seriously injured Dominguez being carried out of the building on the front page of
its October 18 special earthquake edition.72
71
J. Arnett, G. Kitahara, S.T. McCreary, and D. Olsen, Planning and Research: Pacific Garden Mall,
Summer 1974, Santa Cruz: Downtown Chamber of Commerce, 1974; Ross Eric Gibson, “Landmark that
Grew Up: Hard Childhood Served Charles Ford Well,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/229.
72
Don Miller, “Rumors of Wars: When downtown Santa Cruz shuddered and shook,” Santa Cruz Sentinel,
October 17, 2009, E7; Santa Cruz Sentinel, 5:04 p.m. The Great Quake of 1989, 55-56.
176
Address: 1100, 02 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Pretty Mama
Current Business/Name: Hoffman’s/Kianti’s
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Not in district boundaries
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1945
Architect:
Style: Modern
Description: This squat one-story building has a flat roof with a wide, scored
band at the top of the building. Below the band, aluminum framed plate glass windows
reach from the band to the ground. Simple pillars between the windows divide the façade
into three equal parts. A metal-framed canvas panel covered the top third of the windows.
History/Significance: This building served as a bookend to the 1100 block of
Pacific Avenue. It was one of the only survivors in the vicinity since the two buildings
next door and most across the street were demolished.
177
Address: 1110 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Good Times Building: Good Times/Blue Moon Café/Pacific
Garden Imports/Certified Organic Farmers/Trips/Wooden Razor Barber Shop
Current Business/Name: Village Yoga/Aqua Bleu
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1900, remodeled 1967
Architect:
Style: Neo-classical
Description: This is a three-story building with a bracketed cornice and dentil
course molding. The second and third stories have sets of paired double hung sash
windows in five indented bays. The bays span both stories. The first floor has two
modern storefronts with aluminum framed plate-glass display windows and recessed
entry doors. A stained glass panel divides the first and second stories.
History/Significance: This building housed the offices of the Good Times
newspaper, one of Santa Cruz’s alternative weekly newspapers.
178
Address: 1114, 16 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Heard Building
1989 Business/Name: Acapulco/Colonial Rooms
Current Business/Name: Gularte Apartments/Acapulco/Pizza My Heart
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1989
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1906, remodeled 1969
Architect:
Style: Renaissance Revival
Description: This three-story building has a cantilevered hipped roof over a
bracketed cornice with dentil molding. Below the molding is a frieze with floral carvings
at either end. The third story has two sets of paired, rectangular double hung sash
windows on the far sides of the building. In between, on the third story, the building has
three sets of paired, arched double hung sash windows. The second story has five sets of
paired windows, all rectangular. Four square Doric pilasters adorn the building’s second
and third floors and divide the window sets. The first floor had a modern storefront with
aluminum framed plate-glass windows and doors. Faux rockwork covered all of the first
floor façade (except the windows and doors).
History/Significance: The 1906 earthquake damaged this building, bringing down
a brick wall and cracking the foundation on the new building. The earthquake also raised
179
the foundation three inches in some places. The owners repaired the building and the
Colonial Hotel and Cameo Theater later occupied the building. The 350-seat Cameo
opened in 1925 as a small movie theater and closed only a few years later when the
splendor of the Del Mar Theater overwhelmed the small theater. In 1989, the building
was one of downtown’s single-room-occupancy hotels.73
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Most terrible and destructive earthquake,” April 18, 1906; Santa Cruz Weekly
Sentinel, “Local News,” April 28, 1906; Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 125.
73
180
Address: 1124 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Del Mar Theater
1989 Business/Name: Del Mar Theater
Current Business/Name: Same
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1936, restored 2001
Architect: J. Lloyd Conrich (outside), William Chevalis (interior)
Style: Zig-Zag Moderne
Description: John Chase writes, “The façade, divided into three sections bordered
by grooved piers, is focused on its tall sign and projecting marquee. On the marquee are
neon stars and seashells. Beneath the zig-zag bas-relief border are bare-breasted
maidens.” The stucco building has a flat roof with a stepped parapet. On either side of the
marquee on the second story, there are five two-over-two sash double hung windows
above first-story storefronts. There is a shorter, two-story portion of the building on its
south side with two two-over-two sash double hung windows on its second story and a
first floor storefront.
John Chase offers this description of the building’s interior: “The ceiling of the
lobby, between the large red beams, is corrugated and painted in shades of beige, aqua,
and gold with motifs of crossed arrows, swags, seashells, and crudely depicted goddesses.
181
The lamps are of clear and frosted glass, adorned with large stars and bound sheaves
pierced by arrows.” 74
History/Significance: The 1,500-seat Del Mar Theater opened on August 14,
1936, replacing the 700-seat Unique Theater on the site. The theater was a flagship for its
parent company, the Golden State Theatre chain. The theater had an orchestra pit and
stage so that it could also host convention and vaudeville acts as well as motion pictures.
The theater was the most opulent movie palace in town when it opened with its
spectacular interior and white-coated ushers. Most of the smaller theaters downtown
closed after the Del Mar opened. The Del Mar sustained heavy damage during the flood
of 1955 when floodwaters poured into the basement and ruined the theater’s equipment.75
The Del Mar made repairs and went on to survive the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
74
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 153.
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 153, 155; Ross Eric Gibson, Del Mar Theater plaque located on the
storefront on the right side of the marquee; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8
million,” December 25, 1955.
75
182
Address: 1128 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Bank of America Annex
1989 Business/Name: Same
Current Business/Name: Jade/Eco Goods/Bloom Body Care
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1989
National Register District Contributor: Yes (as part of the bank complex)
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1936
Architect: Henry A. Minton
Style: Moderne
Description: The National Register nomination notes that this is “a one-story
turquoise tiled Moderne building with four bays. Each doorway is countersunk providing
an intimate feeling to the entry…the annex is structurally integrated into the bank.”76 A
flat, unadorned overhang spans the bays. Columns separate the bays and the bays have
aluminum framed plate-glass display windows and doors.
History/Significance: See next.
76
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-8.
183
Address: 1134 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Bank of Italy
1989 Business/Name: Bank of America
Current Business/Name: New Leaf Market
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes (with annex at 1128)
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1929
Architect: Henry A. Minton
Style: Zig Zag Moderne
Description: The one-story Bank of America building has a low-pitched, hipped,
red-tile roof. The building has a cornice with a “zig-zag pattern. The Pacific Avenue
façade has four faceted [grooved] pilasters, the two in the center bearing bas-relief
plaques of Hermes like figures.” 77 The pilasters divide the façade into three indented
rectangular bays. The outer bays house large windows divided into five by three panes
on the top portion and three panes on the bottom portion. The central bay frames the
pedimented double doorway and a five-by-two window above the doorway.
History/Significance: Architect Henry A. Minton was born in Boston and
graduated from Harvard University. He was one of many architects who came to
California after the 1906 earthquake and fire to participate in the rebuilding of San
77
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 156.
184
Francisco. Minton designed numerous churches and schools for the Catholic Diocese of
San Francisco and the Alameda County Courthouse. Bank of Italy (later Bank of
America) president A.P. Giannini commissioned Minton and his firm to design buildings
all over California for the bank’s branches. Giannini introduced branch banking, where
customers could go to a local office of a bank based elsewhere, a revolutionary concept at
the time of its conception. This concept required the branches to have somewhat of a
uniform design. Each branch was a unique building, but Minton designed the branches
with similar features that would allow people to identify the building as a Bank of
America branch.
The bank, located on the corner of Soquel and Pacific Avenues, sustained over
$20,000 worth of damage to its basement and equipment when water poured down
Soquel to Pacific during the 1955 flood, but survived the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.78
Jack Douglas, “Henry A. Minton: A.P. Giannini’s Architect,” Continuity: Preservation Action Council of
San Jose Newsletter 13, no. 1 (Winter 2002), 10-12, www.preservation.org/newsletters/winter2002.pdf;
Page, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, 83; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8
million,” December 25, 1955.
78
185
Address: 1208, 10 Pacific Avenue, 105, 07, 09 Soquel Avenue
Historic Name: Trust Building
1989 Business/Name: Max Dakota/California Savings & Loan/Pizza My Heart/Monica’s
Expresso Café.
Current Business/Name: Borders
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1910, remodeled 1969, 1978
Architect: Edward Van Cleeck
Style: Colonial Revival
Description: This is a three-story, exposed brick Colonial Revival building that
turns the corner from Pacific Avenue onto Soquel Avenue. The building has a flat roof
with a short parapet. “There [are] simple brackets under the broad eaves and rounded
two-story bays with fluted bases. An entablature-like band below the eaves [is] garnished
with colonial garlands and a dentil course.” 79 Two bays front the Pacific Avenue side of
the building while the Soquel Avenue side of the building has four bays. Each bay has
two double-hung sash windows on each floor and dentil courses on the tops and bottoms
of both window sets. A simple band topped by a cornice divides the second floor from
79
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 156.
186
the first floor storefronts. Brick pillars support the band above the recessed storefront
entries.
History/Significance: Len Poehlman constructed this building and named it in
honor of his wife’s family, the Trusts. After the Loma Prieta earthquake, the building
initially served as a sign of the city’s spirit because one loose brick hung precariously
from the building’s top story and did not fall. The hope for this building proved to be
short lived though as it quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether or not it
was salvageable. The building’s owners, the Kett family of Watsonville, wanted to tear it
down, and produced engineers’ reports that said the building was not beyond reasonable
repair. Preservationists fought to save the building and presented reports that asserted that
the building was fixable. The building sat boarded up for three years until a March 1992
fire ravaged it. Before the fire, the Ketts had decided to rehabilitate the building despite
the fact that their engineers claimed it would cost $100,000 more to repair the existing
building than to construct a new one. After the fire, repair costs obviously rose and the
owners chose to raze the landmark structure. A last minute lawsuit filed to save the
building failed, and the building was razed in April 1992.80
Greg Beebe, “One blow after another to rebuilding,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 7, 1992; Chase,
Sidewalk Companion, 156; Kathy Kreiger, “Spectacular, tragic fire draws crowd,” Santa Cruz Sentinel,
March 6, 1992; Paul Rogers, “Buildings can be saved, report says,” San Jose Mercury News, March 14,
1991; Martha Snyder, “Trust Building owners seek demolition,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 14, 1992;
Martha Snyder, “Trust Building destruction underway,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 9, 1992.
80
187
Address: 1212, 14, 18 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Hagemann-McPherson Building/Elks Building
1989 Business/Name: Camouflage/Pacific Cookie/Universes Records/The Studio/Payless
Shoes
Current Business/Name: Borders
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes, as part of Borders building
Date Originally Constructed: 1910, remodeled 1937, 1956
Architect: Edward Van Cleeck
Style: Colonial Revival
Description: This building was “…erected at the same time and to the same
design as its neighbor,” the Trust Building. The Elks Building is shorter at only two
stories and longer. The Elks Building has the same flat roof, broad, bracketed eaves,
dentil course and swag frieze as the Trust Building, but with a more prominent pediment.
The building has four single story rounded bays with two double-hung sash windows per
bay. Between the bays there are three double-hung sash windows with pedimented
window surrounds. A horizontal band with a simple cornice separates the second story
188
from the first floor storefronts. Wood pillars frame the modern aluminum framed plateglass windowed storefronts.81
History/Significance: Businessman Frederick Hagemann, an associate of sugar
baron Claus Spreckles, constructed this building in 1910 to house the Hotel Waldo. The
Santa Cruz Elks, organized in 1902, bought the building in 1919 for use as their lodge.
The building suffered immensely during the 1955 flood. Its basement flooded completely
and the Harris Bros. men’s clothing store on the first floor reported that there was two
feet of water on the main floor.82
The building also sustained damage in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Quinton
Skinner, an employee of Universes Records, described for the UCSC Regional History
Project what it was like to be in the Elks Building during the earthquake:
…the way the building was structured, we were on the ground floor. It was a very
long and narrow store, and upstairs from us was a dance academy…you could
hear them creaking around at times. And my first impression was that they were
doing something incredibly loud up there…basically, the store was wooden, and it
started to shake, and I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I swear I could see the
walls undulating. It’s kind of like if you were to take a shoebox or a cardboard
cracker box and sort of bend the sides so that you were kind of turning a
rectangle…the creaking of the wood was incredible. It sounded like there were
decades of creaks that were being saved up and they all came out at once…it was
81
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 156.
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 156; Rowland, Early Years,195, 215; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Avenue
Damage Severe,” December 23, 1955.
82
189
like someone had placed a giant board under the building with a tin can, and they
were playing with the leverage on either side. And the building was rocking back
and forth.83
Like the Trust Building next door, the Kett family of Watsonville owned the Elks
Building in 1989. The controversy over historical value and the feasibility of repair that
embroiled the Trust Building also concerned the adjacent Elks Building. Engineers
produced conflicting reports on whether or not the building could be saved. The city
hired an independent engineer Loring Wyllie of Degenkolb Associates to evaluate the
buildings in 1991. The San Jose Mercury News described Wyllie’s assessment of the
damage to the Elks Building:
He said, ‘Repair of the damage to these buildings would be reasonably simple,’
and described the most serious damage: The north wall on the Elks building
moved several inches west. The roof joists were pulled from their supports.
Plaster on several interior walls cracks. And exterior bricks cracked or were
severely loosened. To salvage the building, he recommended that the outside
brickwork be repaired with steel rods and epoxy and that primary walls be bolted
to floors and the roof. Interior partitions should be rebuilt from plywood…and
rigid steel bracing should be erected to shore up the Elks’ façade.84
After nearly three years of fighting, the Ketts decided to save the Trust Building and to
demolish the Elks Building. After the Trust Building fire in March 1992, Downtown
Quinton Skinner, interview 1989, 41, 44, 47. This is only an excerpt of Skinner’s description. His entire
description of the fifteen seconds of the earthquake takes up eight pages of the UCSC Oral History
Project’s transcript.
84
Paul Rogers, “Buildings can be saved, report says,” San Jose Mercury News, March 14, 1991;
83
190
Association Executive Director Pat Calvert told the Sentinel, “The irony is, the building
that burned is the building they wanted to save.”85
The Elks Building languished for another year while the city and the Ketts fought
to convince the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay for the demolition.
FEMA disagreed with the assessment that demolition was the only feasible option for the
historically valuable building and declined to offer Federal dollars for the demolition.
The City Council then loaned the Ketts $135,000 of redevelopment money and the
demolition proceeded in July 1993. The Elks Building and the Ferrari Building next door
were the last two buildings to be demolished downtown after the earthquake.86
Greg Beebe, “One blow after another to rebuilding,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 7, 1992; Paul Rogers,
“Fire gutted landmark may be doomed,” San Jose Mercury News, March 7, 1992.
86
Katherine Edwards, “And the wall come tumbling down: last remains of quake falling to wrecking ball,”
Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 7, 1993; Martha Mendoza, “Ferrari, Elks buildings are quake’s final legacy,”
Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 6, 1993.
85
191
Address: 1220 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Masonic Hall/Ferrari Building
1989 Business/Name: Ferrari Florist
Current Business/Name: Rosie McCann’s Irish Pub/Vida Lounge
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1887, remodeled 1907, 1927, 1956
Architect: Charles W. Davis (1887 brick), John Williams (1887 frame), William H.
Weeks (1907)
Style: Commercial Italianate
Description: Most of the building’s appearance dates to the 1907 remodel that
removed the features that made the building look like a “Gothic-Roman castle.” The
buildings first floor appearance derives from the significant ground floor renovations
made after the 1955 flood.87
The three-story stucco or plaster-faced building has an unadorned cornice below a
short, stepped parapet. The building has two arched windows on the third story, and two
rectangular windows on the second story, one on either side of a rectangular central bay.
Two pilasters in the bay divide the triple windows on both the second and third stories.
All the windows are hopper style with two-pane glazing. A solid belt course separates the
87
Page, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, 84; Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-9.
192
second story from the first floor storefront. Concrete panels surround the first floor
storefront.
History/Significance: The Santa Cruz Lodge Number 38 of Masons organized in
1853 and gathered originally in a building on Mission Hill. As business moved down to
the flat, the Masons did too, meeting in several buildings on Pacific Avenue until erecting
this building in 1887. Charles W. Davis drew the original plans to suit a brick building,
and John Williams altered the plans to construct the building as a frame building.
William Weeks supervised the building’s extensive 1907 remodel that removed most of
its Gothic castle-like features. After the remodel, the bottom floor housed the Jewel, one
of Santa Cruz’s first movie theaters, from 1908-1920. The building also housed local
florist, Ferrari’s, for over forty years.88
Several disasters injured the building. A fire severely damaged the building in
1927. In 1955, Ferrari Florists reported a loss of over $3,000 in stock and in damage to
the building due to the flood. The Loma Prieta earthquake also damaged the building, and
this time it was not repaired. The building shared a wall with the Elks Building so that
neither could be demolished without the other. The Masonic Hall stood until 1993 when
the owners of the Elks Building obtained funding to tear down that building and the
demolition of both building proceeded.89
88
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 157; Rowland, Early Years, 214-215.
Katherine Edwards, “And the wall come tumbling down: last remains of quake falling to wrecking ball,”
Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 7, 1993; Martha Mendoza, “Ferrari, Elks buildings are quake’s final legacy,”
Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 6, 1993; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8 million,”
December 25, 1955.
89
193
Address: 1224, 1306, 1308 and 1320 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: N/A
1989 Business/Name: Palace Office Supply, Jackson’s Shoes, Phillip Norman Ltd., Dell
Williams
Current Business/Name: Pacific Trading Co., O My Sole, Marini’s, Dell Williams
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributors: No
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1956
Architect:
Style: Modern
Description: These are four very similar buildings described together here
because of their resemblance and common history. All four are one-story buildings with
flat roofs and smooth stucco walls on the top of their facades. Flat overhangs shadow the
sidewalk. Each building has aluminum frame plate-glass display windows. The
photographs make the details of the storefronts difficult to see, but the National Register
nomination notes that 1320, the Dell Williams jewelry store, was unique with “glass
display cases [that] lead into sunken entryway. Textured brick trim frame[d] glass
windows and display cases.”90
90
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-17.
194
History/Significance: The 1955 flood had an extreme impact on this block.
Schipper-Dillon clothing store initially told the Sentinel that the water buckled store’s
hardwood floors and that the store would be closed for a month for repairs. The shop
owners found the damage to be greater than they had originally estimated and informed
the Sentinel two days later that the store would be closed “indefinitely” because of the
heavy damage. The floors at Lad-N-Lassie, the shop at 1306 Pacific Avenue in 1955,
buckled as well after the water inundated the store at a depth of three feet. As a result of
the severe damage, the buildings between the Masonic Hall and the Palomar Hotel that
housed these shops and eleven other businesses were razed. The four buildings still extant
today quickly replaced the damaged structures in 1956, but most businesses did not
immediately return. The 1956-57 Polk’s city directory lists only six businesses between
the Masonic Hall and the Palomar, with three more addresses listed as “vacant.” The
buildings eventually gained tenants and survived the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.91
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 158; R.L. Polk and Company, Polk’s Santa Cruz (California) city
directory, including Capitola and Soquel, Monterey Park, CA: R.L. Polk & Co. 1955, 1956-57; Santa Cruz
Sentinel, “Avenue Damage Severe,” December 23, 1955; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in
Downtown $1.8 million,” December 25, 1955.
91
195
Address: 1330, 34, 38, 44, 48, 52 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Palomar Hotel
1989 Business/Name: Palomar Hotel/Restaurant/Fortier’s Opticians
Current Business/Name: El Palomar/Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1929
Architect: William H. Weeks
Style: Moderne
Description: A stepped central parapet and the vertical lines streaming down from
it divide the rectangular façade of the six-story Palomar Hotel. The central section below
the parapet has vertical rows of larger windows on either side of a set of four smaller
windows. Large vertical lines separate the larger windows from the set of smaller ones
while thinner vertical lines divide the four windows. More fluting near the edges of the
building topped by busts of conquistadors separate the column of windows on the far
edges of the building. Between these windows and the fluted central section are two more
windows on both sides. All the windows on the upper stories are double-hung sash
windows. Decorative shields sit below the windows on the edges of the building and on
the sides of the central section. A wide, solid band on the second floor contains paired
arched windows separated by short pillars. The upper stories are smooth stucco while
196
horizontally laid bricks cover the ground floor. The recessed main double door entry sits
below a wide, flat overhang that extends out to the street. Four more storefronts sit on
either side of the main entry.
History/Significance: The Palomar Hotel was Santa Cruz’s first “skyscraper.” The
construction of the Palomar in 1928-29 was part of downtown developers’ drive to
recapture some of the convention business from the beachfront. In 1930, Frank Roth put
the Palomar, the St. George and the Casa del Rey/La Bahia at the beach under the same
management to make bookings and marketing easier. The strategy paid off and Santa
Cruz became one of the top convention destinations in California.
The 1955 flood put an end to that prosperity. The Palomar itself sustained over
$50,000 worth of damage when its basement, lobby, restaurant and bar flooded. A 1953
restaurant strike had already resulted in a drop in bookings and the flood damage to the
Palomar, the St. George, the theaters, and a large number of other businesses downtown
caused the convention business to disappear entirely.92
In 1989, the Palomar was a single-room occupancy residential hotel housing
mostly senior citizens. The hotel’s new owners completed a retrofit just before the Loma
Prieta earthquake struck. A special epoxy glue repaired the cracks in the building’s
façade that resulted from the earthquake and the building survived the experience.
Gibson, “Convention Business”; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8 million,”
December 25, 1955.
92
197
Address: 1360, 62, 64, 68 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: P. Neary Building
1989 Business/Name: Potato Works restaurant/Yellow Bird/Artisans
Current Business/Name: Artisans/Twist/Shoe Fetish
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1906, remodeled 1968
Architect: Edward Van Cleeck
Style: Romanesque Revival
Description: This two-story stone building has a Colonial Revival swag frieze
below the bracketed cornice. The second story has four sets of paired windows divided
by smooth stone columns with Corinthian capitals, while iron columns separate the
paired windows from each other. Arched bays top each window. A belt course made of
different sized stones separates the first and second stories. Fluted iron columns divide
the first story storefronts. The storefronts have recessed entries and modern, aluminum
framed plate-glass windows.
History/Significance: The Neary family first came to Santa Cruz in the 1860s
when Irish immigrant Patrick Neary bought an adobe on Mission Hill in 1864. The
198
generations of the family farmed and purchased property throughout the area including
this parcel downtown, as well as the area south of Laurel Street that bears their name.93
This building may have replaced two buildings damaged by the 1906 earthquake.
The Sentinel on April 19, 1906 reported that the “old Sweeney Building and the Unique
Restaurant, both wood and owned by the Nearys are out of plumb.” The 1905 Sanborn
map lists two frame buildings in this location next to the Odd Fellow’s Hall, one of which
is a restaurant, but unfortunately the map does not list the restaurant’s name and
directories dating to the period were unavailable.
93
Koch, Parade, 205; Rowland, Early Years,143.
199
Address: 1374, 76, 82, 84, 90, 96 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Odd Fellows Building
1989 Business/Name: Santa Cruz Nutrition Center/Groff’s Luggage/Odd
Fellows/Webbers
Current Business/Name: Part of new “Cooper House”
Included in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1899, remodeled 1964
Architect: John Williams (1873)
Style: Modern
Description: The 1964 remodel completely modernized the building by covering
its original façade and removing the clock tower. Flat, smooth, tan cement panels
comprise the top half of the two-story building’s windowless façade. Four gold grills atop
the concrete divide the upper façade. A zig-zag metal awning overhangs the sidewalk and
modern plate-glass first floor storefronts.
History/Significance: The Branciforte Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd
Fellows first organized in 1860. San Lorenzo Lodge split from the original in 1868 and
met in the McPherson Building until they erected a building on this site in 1873. The
200
wood-framed building survived the fire of 1894 that destroyed the neighboring
courthouse, but burned in May 1899.94
The Odd Fellows replaced the original structure with this brick building, topped
by a New England style clock tower that served as the town’s main timepiece. In 1929,
the managers of the St. George and Palomar Hotels asked the Odd Fellows to silence the
clock’s chimes because it was keeping their guests awake at night. The group agreed and
the clock sat silent for almost four years until the public pressured the Odd Fellows and
hoteliers to work out a solution. The agreement reached allowed the clock to chime again,
but only from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Jeweler Dell Williams, and later his son, cared for the
clock throughout its lifetime and continually fought with the City for funds to maintain it.
The City usually bowed to the requests when citizens complained after the clock stopped.
The Odd Fellows removed the clock tower from their building when the 1964 remodel
covered the façade. The Lodge sold the clock to the city and it sat in storage for over ten
years until the city chose the restoration of the clock as its United States Bicentennial
project. Kermit L. Darrow designed a brick base for the clock for placement at the
confluence of Pacific Avenue, Front Street, and Water/Mission Streets. The new clock
tower was dedicated in 1976 and became a symbol for the town.95
The Odd Fellows Building fared well during the 1906 earthquake. The Sentinel on
April 19, 1906 reported that the building was one of the least damaged on the street, with
only a broken plate glass window in one of its first floor storefronts. The Sentinel reporter
94
Koch, Parade, 49, 59; Rowland, 214-215.
Koch, Parade, 59-60; Carmen Morones and Rech Ann Pedersen, “Santa Cruz’s Town Clock,” Santa
Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/42.
95
201
wondered at this since the earthquake severely damaged the courthouse next door. “The
late earthquake did not treat all alike,” he wrote, “some buildings were injured while
others standing by their side were not injured in the least.” The building was not so
fortunate in 1989 and was demolished.96
96
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake Notes,” April 19, 1906, 5, 7.
202
Address: 110 Cooper Street
Historic Name: County Courthouse
1989 Business/Name: Cooper House/Bento Baki/Carmel Candies and Confections/The
Crepe Place/The Crystal Kaleidescope/Patti’s Bloomers
Current Business/Name: “New” Cooper House/O’Neills Surf Shop
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1894, remodeled 1906, 1970-71
Architect: N.A. Comstock/Thomas Beck
Construction Supervisor: Thomas Beck/Edward Van Cleeck
Builder: R.H. McCabe
Style: Richardsonian Romanesque
Description: The two-story former courthouse is a massive, bulky structure that
takes up the entire southeast corner of Pacific Avenue and Cooper Street. The
asymmetrical Cooper Street façade spans almost the entire block, while the round, twostory tower on the corner of Pacific and Cooper defines the building’s shorter Pacific
Avenue side. The building has a hipped roof with a gabled wall dormer on its Cooper
Street side. The Pacific Avenue side has a similar dormer topping its slightly protruding
tower. The roof has a grooved cornice with short brackets, while the dormers have
parapets and decorative plaques at their peaks. Both have decorative flashing on their
203
ridges. The dormers also have three deeply recessed arched windows. The windows on
the first and second stories are deeply recessed as well. Round-topped arches surround
the windows on the second story while stone transoms top the rectangular first story
windows. A short square tower, whose roof mirrors the building’s roof overall, houses
the main entrance on the building’s Cooper Street side. An arch made from Plumas
County bluestone springs from heavy piers contained the entry doors. Above the arch, the
tower has two recessed rectangular windows beneath a carved plaque. A frieze comprised
of carved heads and foliage traces the sides of the tower just below the roof. Two arches
in the Pacific Avenue tower, smaller versions of the main entry arch, provide a secondary
entrance. The rough-faced Plumas County bluestone used for the arches also comprises
the building’s foundation. Its dark color contrasts the foundation and the arches from the
rest of the building’s smoother, ochre colored brick. A wide belt course divides the first
and second stories and is one of the building’s most distinctive features. It is painted a
darker color than the walls and with the building’s name, repeated all around the course.
History/Significance: The Cooper brothers, John L., T.S., and William F., came
from Pennsylvania and traced their ancestry back to author James Fenimore Cooper. The
brothers were among the first Americans to settle in Santa Cruz and established a store on
the street that now bears their name. When the county outgrew its rented rooms in F.A.
Hihn’s Flatiron Building, the Cooper brothers and Thomas W. Moore donated this site
for the erection of a county courthouse. Construction began in April 1867, but the nature
of the downtown site caused delays. Architects had drawn the plans to suit the hard rock
of Mission Hill, the courthouse’s original intended location. They had to amend the plans
204
to create a greater foundation to suit the soft soil of the new site. The county completed
the brick, Italianate structure in late 1867, only to see it burn to the ground in the fire of
1894.97
After the fire, the County bought additional land on the block and began
construction on this courthouse. Constant problems with the building’s plans and their
execution plagued the construction process. The Coopers’ deed stipulated that the
building’s entrance must be on Cooper Street side, but the original plans did not place the
entry there. The issues did not end there. As John Chase writes,
During construction of the building there was a running feud between architect
N.A. Comstock and construction supervisor Thomas Beck. Beck complained to
the [County Board of] Supervisors about Comstock’s haphazard execution of the
specifications for the building. Brick piers appeared where brick piers had not
been called for, underweight steel beams buckled, and substitutions and deletions
were made without notice to the Supervisors. Eventually, Comstock was fired,
and it was found he had been embezzling from the county. Beck took Comstock’s
place and Edward Van Cleeck became construction supervisor. Perhaps Beck was
not able to undo all the damage wrought by Comstock, for the 1906 earthquake
damaged much of the building.98
Indeed, the 1906 earthquake hit the building hard. The cupola atop the front tower
crashed through the building’s roof into the basement, destroying floors and ceilings on
Koch, Parade, 20-21; Rowland, Early Years, 137; Margaret Souza, “The History of Santa Cruz County
Courthouse,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/1/.
98
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 176.
97
205
its way down. Parts of the roof settled and moved and walls shattered. The Sentinel on
April 18, 1906 wrote, “the courthouse is almost completely destroyed. It is hard to tell
just what keeps the roof from caving in.”99
The County rebuilt the building, under Beck’s supervision and without the tall
tower. The building’s shorter profile did not protect it from another disaster, the
December 22, 1955 flood. The floodwaters poured down Cooper Street and into the
courthouse’s basement, drowning boxes of County records in eight to ten feet of water. A
December 28 photo published in the Sentinel shows heavy shelves and fixtures thrown to
the floor, demonstrating the power of the water. “The County never planned on a flood
that would reach that area,” purchasing agent Ed Christensen told the Sentinel on
December 25.100
The flood accelerated the County’s decades-long desire to acquire new, larger
quarters. The Redevelopment Area created after the flood in the areas nearest the river
allowed that to happen. The County moved into a new governmental center on the east
side of the river in 1967 and put the old Cooper Street courthouse up for sale. One bidder
offered the County $90,000 for the site if the building were razed and $75,000 with the
building intact. The bidder planned to create a parking lot on the site and the County
determined that it would cost less than $15,000 to demolish the building before sale. The
Board of Supervisors initially leaned towards the sale, but the public pressure convinced
them to save the building. In 1970, the County sold the old courthouse to developer Max
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Most Terrible and Destructive Earthquake,” April 18, 1906; Souza, “The History
of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse.”
100
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Records in Courthouse are damaged,” December 25, 1955.
99
206
Walden, who preserved most of the building’s features while splitting it into a variety of
shops and restaurants. Walden named his rehabilitated, reused creation, the “Cooper
House.”101
The Cooper House became the iconic symbol of the new, progressive downtown
and the center of activity on the Pacific Garden Mall. The sidewalk café drew patrons
who met friends and whiled away afternoons on the patio. The specialty shops attracted
students and families alike. Colorful street performers and musicians, most notably the
locally infamous band, Don McCaslin & Warmth, presented daily shows on the sidewalk
outside the building.
An earthquake once again damaged the building in 1989. The staircase inside
separated from the wall. Walls cracked. Windows broke. Chunks of the brick walls,
including the entire Cooper Street dormer, fell into the street. Some ceilings bowed or fell
completely through inside. After receiving conflicting reports on the building’s safety and
the feasibility of repair, the City ordered that the building be torn down as soon as
possible. The community’s deep connection to the building made the post-Loma Prieta
demolition of the Cooper House especially painful.102 A crowd gathered on October 26,
1989 to watch the wrecking crane begin to tear away at the building. Some people cried,
Richard A. Gendron, “Faultlines of Power: The Political Economy of Redevelopment in a Progressive
City After a Natural Disaster” (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz, 1998), 274 note 32.; Koch,
Parade, 219; Donald L. Wilson, “Memories in the rubble of the Cooper House,” Santa Cruz Sentinel,
October 27, 1989.
102
Disaster also seems to stalk The Crepe Place, one of the restaurants in the Cooper House at the time of
the earthquake. The restaurant moved into the Cooper House after a 1988 rockslide destroyed the
restaurant’s location on North Pacific Avenue. Several years later, a bomb meant for the lawyer whose
offices sat above the restaurant damaged The Crepe Place’s present location on Soquel Avenue. See, Ann
Parker, “The Crepe Place – This Santa Cruz Landmark is Still Rolling Along After 37 Years,” Santa Cruz
Sentinel, March 3, 2010.
101
207
while a saxophonist played “Taps.” It took the cranes three days to completely demolish
the building. The destruction of the building heralded the demise of the Pacific Garden
Mall and downtown as it once was.
The building quickly became the subject of intense and ongoing controversy
concerning whether the old courthouse could have been repaired, and if the City acted too
hastily in ordering the demolition. The Cooper House was the first building demolished,
only nine days after the earthquake. Some argued that the City used the building to
demonstrate that no “sentimental decisions” were going to be made about demolitions in
order to speed recovery. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, engineer Michael
Krakower of Pasadena firm Kariotis and Associates, and Loring Wyllie of Degenkolb
Associates of San Francisco (the same engineer who evaluated the Trust and Elks
Buildings) agreed that while the building was heavily damaged, it could have been saved,
or at least merited a deeper examination. City Manager Dick Wilson, Public Works
Director Larry Erwin and two of the engineers on the team sent by the state Office of
Emergencies services disagreed, saying that the building was “standing rubble” and an
imminent threat to life safety. The argument about whether the City made a foolish,
economic decision or a prudent choice that protected life safety, persists to this day. “The
Cooper House could have been saved,” contractor Michael Bates told the Good Times in
2009. “The owners of Lulu’s next to the still empty pit hired us to rebuild Lulu’s and we
208
did,” Bates said, implying that his firm also could have rebuilt the Cooper House. The
debate likely will continue as long as those who remember the Mall live.103
Both the City and its detractors did agree though that the retrofitting undertaken
by owner Jay Paul and completed by Bates’ firm, kept the building from sustaining
greater damage during the 1989 earthquake and saved lives. Bates’ company had
completed the retrofit of the Cooper House the week before the earthquake hit. The
retrofit included the addition of structural steel, rebar, and framing and tied the whole
building together. The extra support allowed the building stand long enough for its
occupants to get out safely.104
Bruce Bratton, “The Cooperhouse,” Good Times, October 15-21, 2009, 6; Geoffrey Dunn and Rick
Hildreth, “Razing Questions,” Pacific Monthly, undated, in the Santa Cruz Public Libraries Newspaper
Clipping file, “Historic Buildings” folder, 37, 35-36.
104
Greg Beebe, “Work Saved Lives,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 16, 1990; Bruce Bratton, “The
Cooperhouse,” Good Times, October 15-21, 2009; Tom Long, “Mall Walls Tumble Down,” Santa Cruz
Sentinel, October 29, 1989.
103
209
Address: 1502, 08, 10 Pacific Avenue, 101, 05 Cooper Street
Historic Name: County Bank Building
1989 Business/Name: Pacific Western Bank/Cat ‘n Canary
Current Business/Name: Pacific Wave
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes/No – only the Cooper Street and Pacific Avenue façades saved
Rebuilt: Yes, present building built behind original facades
Date Originally Constructed: 1894-95, remodeled 1910, 1983
Architect: Van Sickle & Haynes (original), Ward & Blohme (1910 remodel)
Style: Renaissance Revival
Description: The County Bank Building is a two-story structure with a short
parapet, a bracketed cornice, and dentil course molding. The brick second story has
carved lintels between the banded pilasters that flanked the windows. Paired double-hung
sash windows alternate with single double-hung sash windows. An arch with a keystone
tops each window, supported by additional pilasters. The sandstone first story has banded
Doric pillars and banded square pilasters flanking the entrance. The banding on the rest
of the first store mirrors the banding on the pillars. The first story also has plate glass
display windows surrounded by stones set at slight angles to the rest of the façade that
serve to highlight the arched windows,.105
105
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 160.
210
History/Significance: This building replaced Michael Leonard’s two-story
building that burned in the fire of 1894. Santa Cruz County Bank opened in 1870, and at
the time of the fire was operating out of the Hihn/Delamater Building across the street
from this site. The day after the fire, County Bank bought the site and began constructing
this building. The bank eventually incorporated the Staffler Building at 1510 Pacific,
erected after the 1894 fire destroyed George Staffler’s furniture store and undertaking
parlor. The Staffler Building served as the bank’s annex and became part of the bank
structure. In 1983 the bank remodeled the Staffler’s façade to duplicate the style of the
main bank building.106
The bank, like its neighbors on this unfortunate block, suffered through multiple
disasters. The 1906 earthquake jolted the building and prevented access to the vault until
repairs could be made. The bank also suffered heavy damage during the 1955 flood.
Montgomery Ward, located in the bank building storefront at 1510 Pacific, reported
extensive losses and that it was “completely wiped out.” The flood decimated other
businesses in the building as well. The portion of the bank at 1508 Pacific housed Hooker
& Fay in 1955, but the 1956-57 city directory listed the storefront as still vacant. The
1989 earthquake damaged the brick building as well, and Pacific Western Bank, the
owner at the time, decided to save only the facades of the building.107
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-12; Rowland, Early Years, 182, 187-188.
R.L. Polk and Company, Polk’s Santa Cruz (California) city directory, 1955, 1956-57; Santa Cruz
Sentinel, “Earthquake Notes,” April 19, 1906; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8
million,” December 25, 1955; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Destruction and preservation: Gentle demolition of old
bank building,” undated, in the Santa Cruz Public Libraries “Earthquake – City of Santa Cruz” newspaper
clipping file.
106
107
211
Address: 1514, 16, 20, 22, 26, 28 Pacific Avenue, 815, 17, 21 Front Street
Historic Name: St. George Hotel
1989 Business/Name: St George Hotel/Sportsman’s Shop, Bubble Café, Dream Sweet
Futons, Antique Collective, Housing Law Center, Sockshop Santa Cruz, Trojenz Ltd.,
Pacific Trading Co., Bunny’s Shoes, Gatsby’s, The Daisy
Current Business/Name: Body Option, Bookshop Santa Cruz, Chocolate, Judy Wyant
Antiques
Included in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1894, remodeled 1897, 1912, 1929, 1960
Architect:
Style: Spanish Colonial Revival and Commercial Italianate
Description: The St. George Hotel is the central feature on this block, taking up a
good portion of the block on both Pacific Avenue and Front Street. The building is three
stories for most of its length, and two stories north of its red tiled roofed tower. The
building’s appearance dates mainly to the 1922 remodel when the owners of the hotel
combined and “cosmetically resurfaced” the original hotel structure and the adjoining
Jarvis/Simpson Building and Pease Building to create a unified Spanish Colonial Revival
structure. The remodel plastered over the buildings’ original bricks and added a variety of
Spanish Colonial details. These details included the red tile shed roof with curved, iron
212
brackets on the three-story portion of the structure, the rounded square tower, iron
balconets on the upper story windows, wrought iron decorations, and elaborate bay
windows on the second story of the northernmost portion of the structure. The bay
windows have elaborately carved panels depicting conquistadors. A balconet with a red
tile roof, wooden balustrades and porch supports spans the distance between the two bay
windows. The fenestration consists of paired, double-hung sash windows on the second
and third stories. The modern first floor storefronts dated to the 1960 remodel.108
The Front Street side of the building retains the Commercial Italianate façade. It
has bracketed brick cornices on both the second and third stories and recessed double
hung sash windows. The single windows on the third story are shorter than those on the
second story, but both have recessed round pediments. Stone molding spans the distance
between the windows on the second story. The first floor storefronts retain their historical
appearance with their paned display windows and doors framed in brick or stone.
John Chase commented on the building’s interior in his book, The Sidewalk
Companion to Santa Cruz Architecture:
Like the Palomar Hotel, the St. George was distinguished chiefly for its interior.
The glass-roofed Palm Room, or Garden Court, was built around a fountain. An
airy quality was given to the room by its latticework walls and ceilings, all the
beams and supports being thin and delicate. The latticed walls were filled in with
mirrors, aiding the illusion of the room as a freestanding gazebo in a garden. On
the walls of the room next door to the Garden Court, gauze draped nymphs
108
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 166; Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-12.
213
cavorted in leafy bowers framed in gilt molding. In 1978 the murals were
“restored” suffering an untimely death by airbrush. These modern maidens would
have looked more at home on the side of a van. Some interior sections of the
building had gorgeous stamped metal ceilings in quatrefoil designs, Corinthian
pilasters, bracketed cornices, and garlanded Art Nouveau seashells.109
History/Significance: In response to the city’s growing wealth and popularity as a
tourist destination, San Francisco liquor merchant Anson P. Hotaling tore down his
original wooden hotel and built the first brick hotel on this site in 1893. One year later,
fire destroyed the hotel, along with most of the block. Hotaling quickly rebuilt and
purchased additional fire-gutted properties to the east and north to expand the hotel’s
original footprint. He called the new structure the “Hotel St. George” in honor of the
knight who battled a fire-breathing dragon. The new hotel for a time was the “last word
in luxury” with a marble staircase, a band balcony, Italian mosaic floors, fine paintings
and murals, custom carpet, a telegraph service and a hydraulic elevator.110
The hotel flourished for several years before another disaster befell the structure.
The 1906 earthquake damaged the structure and sent bricks tumbling through the roof.
“The court of the St. George Hotel in the center of the building was filled with wreckage
from the chimneys that fell,” the Sentinel reported on April 19.111
The Hotalings repaired the building and in the 1920s, expanded it. Fred
Swanton’s beachfront developments were drawing tourists and conventioneers away
109
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 165-166.
Ross Eric Gibson, “The St. George was a Center of Culture and Art,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local
History Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/341/.
111
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake Notes,” April 19, 1906.
110
214
from downtown. Frederick Hotaling, A.P.’s son, decided to compete with Swanton by
enlarging and improving the St. George. Hotaling bought the adjoining Jarvis/Simpson
and Pease Buildings in 1920 and incorporated them into the hotel. Soon after, in 1922,
Hotaling remodeled all three structures and added a Spanish Colonial Revival façade on
the Pacific Avenue side of the hotel. The style was particularly popular at the time and
Swanton’s style of choice at the beachfront. Hotaling’s imitation of Swanton’s Casa del
Rey and La Bahia hotels was part of Hotaling’s scheme to bring visitors back
downtown.112
Hotaling’s plan succeeded as the remodel of the St. George, and the construction
of the Palomar Hotel, New Santa Cruz Theater, and other attractions brought people
downtown. Frank Roth placed the Palomar, St. George, and Casa del Rey under the same
management in 1930. This facilitated bookings and made Santa Cruz one of the top
convention cities in California. The St. George even drew Fred Swanton, who used the
band balcony as his office during his 1927-1933 term as mayor.113
A 1953 restaurant strike and yet another disaster, the 1955 flood, ended the St.
George’s term as a tourist hotel. The strike caused an enormous loss of bookings, and the
subsequent flood prevented the hotel from ever recovering. The flood caused $250,000
worth of damage to the hotel’s basement, rugs, furniture and equipment. This, combined
with the destruction of other tourist-serving businesses on Pacific Avenue, wrecked the
112
113
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 166; Gibson, “Convention Business.”
Gibson, “The St. George” and “Convention Business.”
215
convention industry in downtown Santa Cruz. The St. George became a single-room
occupancy hotel that in 1989, housed over 120 residents, most of them senior citizens.114
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the St. George, but like with the Trust
and Elks Buildings, owners and preservationists disagreed about the extent of the
damage. A protracted fight over the fate of the building ensued. Engineer Michael
Krakower of Pasadena firm John Kariotis & Associates found in early 1990 that the
building was not in imminent danger of collapse and fixable while engineers employed
by Barry Swenson Builders, the owner, determined that the building was irreparably
damaged and that any attempts to save it could endanger workers responsible for the
shoring. The City, Barry Swenson, and business owners displaced by the hotel’s closure
and the cordoning off of surrounding streets battled to raze the hotel while the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, the State Office of Historic Preservation and local
preservation groups fought to save it. The City Council voted in July 1990 to grant a
demolition permit and preservationists went to court to stay the order. Several months
later, a fire devastated the building and ended the fight with the demolition of the hotel.115
Gendron, “Faultlines,” 327; Gibson, “Convention Business;” Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage to
Downtown $1.8 Million,” December 25, 1955.
115
Mark Bergstrom, “Council votes hotel down,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 25, 1990; Guy Lasnier, “St.
George knockdown put on hold,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 10, 1989; Guy Lasnier, “Engineers don’t
agree on safety of St. George,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 18, 1990; Tom Long, “Inspectors assess
ravaged mall,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, November 1, 1989, Brenda D. Phillips, Disaster Recovery (Boca
Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications, 2009), 161.
114
216
Address: 1534 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Plaza Grocery
1989 Business/Name: Zocolli’s Deli
Current Business/Name: Zocolli’s Deli
Including in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1891, remodeled 1912
Architect:
Style: Spanish Colonial /Mediterranean Revival
Description: This one-story wood framed building has a stucco façade and flat
roof with a red-tiled shed roof over the front of the building. Heavy squared piers top by
decorative carvings and tiles flanked the building’s sides and projected slightly above the
roof. A parabolically shaped focal window is the central feature of the front façade.
Pilasters divide the window into five bays, each with two panes. An overhang shades the
storefront. Plywood covers the storefront in the 1989 photos, but in 2010, the building
has a modern recessed entry door between two plate glass windows.
History/Significance: This building was the southernmost structure on this side of
the 1500 block of Pacific Avenue to survive the 1894 fire unscathed. The brick wall of
the neighboring Pease Building (later part of the St. George Hotel) that abutted this
217
wood-framed structure protected it from the fire.116 The building was the only Loma
Prieta earthquake survivor on the west side of the 1500 block of Pacific Avenue.
Italian immigrants Robert (Sr.) and Augusta Zoccoli and their daughter and sonin-law purchased the building in 1948. They operated a small grocery and dry goods store
that sold deli meats, cheeses and household supplies. The business survived the 1955
flood, although the floodwaters did damage the building. Water two feet deep encroached
on the Front Street side of the building, but the family sandbagged the backdoor and only
allowed two inches of water on the first floor. The basement still flooded with almost
three feet of water. The flood destroyed a good amount of merchandise and did enough
damage that the Navy gave the Zoccoli’s son Robert Jr. leave to assist in the cleanup.
Despite the damage, the store remained open for business.
After the Loma Prieta earthquake, the business, then a deli operated by Robert
Junior’s sons, displayed similar resilience. The building survived the earthquake, but
damaged buildings with uncertain futures flanked it on both sides. The city fenced off the
block and the family operated the business out of a 10x30 trailer until their building
reopened eighteen months after the earthquake.117
116
117
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 167.
Zoccoli’s Delicastessen, “This History of Zoccoli’s Deli,” Zoccoli’s Deli, http://www.zoccolis.com.
218
Address: 1536 Pacific Avenue
Historic Name: Wells Fargo
1989 Business/Name: Ken’s Shoes/Feathers Fins & Fur Pet Shop
Current Business/Name: Part of new Flatiron
Including in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: Yes, as part of Flatiron
Rebuilt: Yes, as part of new Flatiron
Date Originally Constructed: ca. 1851
Architect:
Style: Vernacular
Description: No quality photos were found, and neither Chase nor Page describes
this building. This is the National Register Nomination’s description: “A small one-story
stucco building with a false roof projecting as an eave. A squat, low-profile structure
situated between two taller buildings. Building has been stripped and stuccoed,
eradicating its original design character.”118
History/Significance: This building originally served as the Wells Fargo express
office and coach house and later housed pet shops and shoe stores. The Rittenhouse
family owned the building in 1989, along with the adjoining Flatiron building. This
building was considered an element of the Flatiron during the post-quake debate over the
118
Pearson, “National Register Nomination,” 7-17.
219
fate of that building. This building was demolished in 1992, along with the adjacent
Flatiron Building.119
R.L. Polk & Company, City Directories, 1955, 1956-57; Lee Quarnstrom, “Owner asks to raze Flatiron
Building,” San Jose Mercury News, July 26, 1991; Paul Rogers, “Flatiron will be flattened,” San Jose
Mercury News, September 28, 1992.
119
220
Address: 806, 10 Front Street
Historic Name: Hugh Hihn Building/Flatiron Building
1989 Business/Name: Plaza Bakery/The Teacup/The Swan Restaurant
Current Business/Name: Jamba Juice
Including in Previous Survey: No
National Register District Contributor: No
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1860, 1866, remodeled 1906, 1938, 1962, 1972
Architect:
Style: Vernacular
Description: The Flatiron Building is a two-story, flat-roofed building at the
triangular intersection of Pacific Avenue, Front Street and Water/Mission Street. The
building’s triangular shape suits its irregular lot. The building’s shape and its flat front
make it look, as Margaret Koch says, “like a piece of pie blunted on the point.”120
The post-1906 earthquake remodel and repair plastered over the building’s
original redbrick façade, giving the building its smooth appearance.121 The mid-20th
century remodel removed most of the building’s decorative features including its cornice,
shutters and decorative iron veranda. A simple iron catwalk on the second story replaced
these features as one of the building’s distinctive features. The building has a single
Margaret Koch, “The Flatiron Building, Pacific Avenue and Front Street,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/28.
121
Paul Rogers, “Flatiron will be flattened,” San Jose Mercury News, September 28, 1992.
120
221
recessed rectangular window and a door on the front of the second story, and several
more simple recessed rectangular windows on its Front Street sides. The Pacific Avenue
side of the original structure is almost completely smooth except for a window and a
door. The building’s 1866 extension has five upper story windows and a flat parapet that
make the extension appear to be slightly taller than the northern part of the building.
The ground floor has plate glass display windows supported by brick trim and
stucco pillars.
History/Significance: The Flatiron Building, so named because of its wedged,
iron-like shape, was the first brick structure constructed on the flat. The building fronted
the Lower Plaza, the center of activity when the central business district moved from
Mission Hill to the flat. Hugo Hihn, brother of developer/merchant/lumberman Frederick
A. Hihn, commissioned the building in 1859-60 when Pacific Avenue and Front Street
were competing for dominance as the city’s main commercial strip. Hihn apparently gave
his building its distinctive wedged shape to, as Sheila O’Hare and Irene Berry note,
“hedge his bets on which street would prevail as the economic heart of the city.” Hugo
Hihn erected a southern extension of the building in 1866, before permanently returning
to Europe and leaving his holdings in his brother’s care.122
The building has a colorful history and housed a variety of occupants. The County
rented the upper floors for use as a courthouse starting in 1860, following the flow of
commerce and power from Mission Hill to the flats. The courthouse remained in the
Flatiron until 1867 when the County completed its own building on Cooper Street. In the
122
Berry and O’Hare, Santa Cruz, 10; Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 167.
222
1870s and 80s, the building housed a drugstore and a basement saloon. It also briefly
hosted Episcopal Church services on Sundays. The building also apparently had bullet
holes in its façade dating to 1862, when eccentric Judge Joseph H. Skirm took a shot at a
romantic rival. Longtime newspaper columnist Ernest Otto wrote of additional bullet
holes in some of the building’s iron shutter doors, put there during a shootout between
deputies and bandit Tiburcio Vasquez. The bullet holes were a favorite landmark to show
visitors and new children in town.123
The building survived the 1894 fire, but was not so fortunate during other events.
In 1894, the Flatiron had its own water supply, which saved not only the building itself,
but the west side of the block. This fortune was fleeting though. Earthquakes damaged
the Flatiron, including the 1860s earthquakes as well as the 1906 earthquake. The
Sentinel in 1906 reported that “the Hugh Hihn Building, badly damaged in the ‘60s, was
again cracked.” The post-earthquake repairs plastered over the building’s original brick
façade. Over sixty years later, the Plaza Bakery on the first floor of the Flatiron, suffered
over $10,000 worth of damage during the 1955 flood. The bakery still existed in 1989
when the Loma Prieta earthquake again injured the building.124
Preservationists waged a short battle over the fate of the building, although they
admitted fighting less virulently for this building’s survival than for others’. “I got beat
up so badly over the St. George: I don’t think this community cares about its old
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 167; Koch, Parade, 20, 31, 99; Margaret Koch, “The Flatiron Building”
Ernest Otto, as quoted in Koch, Parade, 189.
124
Pamela Reynolds, “The Great Santa Cruz Fire of 1894,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/311; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake notes,” April 19, 1906; Santa
Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage to Downtown, $1.8 million,” December 25, 1955; Rogers, “Flatiron will be
flattened.”
123
223
buildings,” former Historic Preservation Commission Chair Doni Tunheim told the
Sentinel in 1991, explaining why she would not be participating in any fights to save the
Flatiron. Others felt the same way. “People are so afraid to seem like they’re obstructing
the redevelopment of downtown,” architectural historian Ross Eric Gibson said in the
same article.125
The building’s loss of integrity because of multiple remodels complicated the
situation, as did the fact that the building was not listed in the city’s Historic Building
Survey or survey updates (at the request of the Rittenhouse family, the owners). An
assessment by Degenkolb and Associates, the same engineering firm who evaluated the
Trust Building and recommended its repair, concluded that in this case, remodeling the
building yet again would serve little purpose. Degenkolb noted that the remodel would
likely destroy the little historic fabric that remained. Preservationists grudgingly agreed.
“I think you’ll find a consensus…that the building has historic value, but it has lost its
historic integrity,” past president of the Santa Cruz County Historical Trust Cynthia
Matthews said in September 1992. The building was demolished in October 1992.126
Karen Clark, “Flatiron not on list of historic buildings,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, August 17, 1991.
Martha Mendoza, “Flatiron debate may put brakes on downtown,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 31, 1992;
Lee Quarnstrom, “Owner asks to raze Flatiron Building,” San Jose Mercury News, July 26, 1991; Rogers,
“Flatiron will be flattened.”
125
126
224
Address: 115 Cooper Street
Historic Name: Michael Leonard Building
1989 Business/Name: vacant
Current Business/Name: Metro Santa Cruz
Including in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1894, remodeled 1964
Architect: Edward Van Cleeck
Style: Queen Anne
Description: The two-story Michael Leonard building fills the corner of Front
Street and Cooper Street. A round tower with a curved roof cantilevers out at the second
story and overhangs the street corner. The building has flat roof with a parapet that
looked like the front of a mansard roof with round eyebrow gables on the Cooper Street
side. A bracketed cornice runs around both sides of the building. On the Cooper Street
side, the second story has arched, paired double-hung sash windows with arched masonry
surrounds within larger masonry arches. On the Front Street side, the paired and triple
windows are also arched and within arches of their own, but without the larger arch
surrounding them. Pilasters with Romanesque capitals form part of the arches on all the
windows, while a belt course links all of the capitals. The tower has rectangular windows
surrounded by pilasters that matched those on the arched windows. Stucco relief grapes
225
and flowers also adorn the tower and second story. The first floor dates to the 1964
remodel and consists of plate-glass windows with anodized frames in smooth stucco.127
History/Significance: Michael Leonard constructed this building at the corner of
Cooper Street and Front Street after the 1894 destroyed his original building that sat on
the corner of Pacific Avenue and Cooper Street, where the County Bank Building sits.
Leonard’s building replaced another burned building that originally housed the pioneer
Cooper Brothers store.128
Later disasters impacted the building as well. Leonard’s new building sustained
damage in 1906. The Sentinel does not detail the exact damage, except to say that it was
“worse than thought.” The Sentinel in 1955 does not mention the Leonard Building or a
business in the Leonard Building specifically, but the building likely sustained damage in
1955 as well since both the County Bank and County Courthouse, located further away
from the river, suffered heavy damage. The building again suffered in 1989, but was
repaired.129
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 174; Page, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, 89; Pearson, “National
Register Nomination,” 7-14.
128
Rowland, Early Years, 182.
129
Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Earthquake paragraphs,” April 20, 1906; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Partial Damage in
Downtown $1.8 million,” December 25, 1955; Santa Cruz Sentinel, “One Quake, Two Downtowns,”
October 17, 2009.
127
226
Address: 107, 09, 11 Cooper Street
Historic Name: Hihn/Staffler Buidling
1989 Business/Name: Shandrydan/Shen’s Gallery
Current Business/Name: Gravago
Including in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: Yes
Rebuilt: Yes
Date Originally Constructed: 1894, remodeled 1974
Architect:
Style: Neo-classical/Vernacular
Description: This is a two-story double building with a flat parapet over a
bracketed cornice. A swag frieze sits over four double-hung sash windows. Square brick
pilasters with Doric capitals frame the right side windows. A belt course separates the
first and second stories. Cast iron columns of varying widths flank the storefronts. Both
storefronts have recessed entries, with the left side storefront entry placed between two
plate glass display windows and the right side storefront door recessed beside a single
display window. A wood framed entry door is also squeezed between the two storefronts.
History/Significance: George Staffler, furniture merchant/undertaker, constructed
this building with developer Frederick A. Hihn to replace an earlier building that burned
in the fire of 1894. The building’s parapet and cornice tumbled into the street in 1989.
227
The building was demolished, leaving a hole in the street wall between the Leonard
Building and the County Bank Building.
228
Address: 118 Cooper Street
Historic Name: Hall of Records
1989 Business/Name: Santa Cruz County Historical Museum
Current Business/Name: Museum of Art & History Store
Including in Previous Survey: Yes, 1976
National Register District Contributor: Yes
Demolished: No
Rebuilt: N/A
Date Originally Constructed: 1882, remodeled 1920s, 1972
Architect: J.W. Newcum
Style: Italianate Octagon
Description: The Octagon is a one-story brick building named for its shape. As
John Chase writes, “it is an Italianate structure with a small, pedimented gable in its
hipped roof, corner pilasters, and iron shutters over the windows. Over the sidelighted
doorway is a broken pediment with a small urn.” The building also has a bracketed
cornice with dentil molding that the door surround duplicates. The roof has a widow’s
walk adorned with wrought iron railing.130
History/Significance: The County erected this building next to the courthouse in
1882. Unlike the neighboring courthouse, the Octagon survived the 1894 fire and served
as the County Hall of Records for eighty-six years. Similar to the courthouse, the County
clamored for more space in the Hall of Records as the population grew. To accommodate
130
Chase, Sidewalk Companion, 179.
229
the expanding number of records, the County built a boxy brick addition on the
building’s Front Street side in the 1920s. The County still found the space insufficient, in
both the courthouse and the Octagon. When the County constructed a new government
center after the 1955 flood, the Hall of Records moved to that new building. Again as
with the courthouse, when the County considered the demolition of the Octagon,
preservationists fought to save it. In 1968, the Board of Supervisors decided to preserve
the structure as a county museum. A grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development allowed for the removal of the addition and the restoration of the
building. The Octagon survived the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and serves as the
museum store for the adjacent Museum of Art and History.131
Margaret Koch, “The Octagon,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/39/.
131
230
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Chuck and Esther Abbott Collection. Digital Collections from the University of
California, Santa Cruz Library. Photos. Santa Cruz County History Digital Collection,
http://digitalcollections.ucsc.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%Fp265101coll23.
Abbott, Esther, interview by Evelyn Richards, June 2003, transcript, edited by Irene
Reti, UCSC Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, 2005.
Adobe on Green Street. “Downtown Santa Cruz Between Cathcart and Front St.”
http://www.adobegreen.com/downtown.santa.cruz.html.
Alexander, Kurtis. “Retrofits have made for safer community: Lulu Carpenter’s building
example of county’s massive seismic effort.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 17, 2009, E9.
Apodaca, Floyd. “The Loma Prieta Earthquake: Damage Assessment.” Building
Standards (Jan.-Feb. 1990): 21-25.
Arnett, J., G. Kitahara, G., S.T. McCreary, and D. Olsen. Planning and Research: Pacific
Garden Mall, Summer 197. Santa Cruz: Downtown Chamber of Commerce, 1974.
Baine, Wallace. “Remembering ‘The Mall.’” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 3, 2009.
___. “Wormhoudt Changed the Face of Santa Cruz.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 17,
2009.
231
Baldwin, Doug. “Highest flood in 15 years.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, February 1, 1938.
Bales, Richard F. “Did the Cow Do It? A New Look at the Cause of the Great Chicago
Fire,” Illinois Historical Journal 90 (1997), 2-24.
Bay Area News Group. “20 Years After Loma Prieta: Preparing for the Big One.” Santa
Cruz Sentinel, special section, October 11, 2009.
Beal, Richard A.. Highway 17: The Road to Santa Cruz. Aptos, CA: The Pacific Group,
1991.
Beebe, Greg. “One blow after another to rebuilding,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 7,
1992.
___. “So long old friends.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 21, 1990.
___. “Work saved lives.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 16, 1990.
Bergstrom, Mark. “Council votes hotel down.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 25, 1990.
___. “Roasting Co. files claim against city.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 15, 1990.
___. “Study says Trust Building salvageable.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 14, 1991.
Berry, Irene and Sheila O’Hare. Santa Cruz, California. Chicago: Arcadia Publishing,
2002.
232
Biel, Steven, ed. American Disasters. New York: New York University Press, 2001.
Bixel, Patricia and Elizabeth Turner. Galveston and the 1900 Storm: Catastrophe and
Catalyst. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000.
Bolin, Robert, ed., The Loma Prieta Earthquake: Studies of Short Term Impacts. Boulder,
CO: University of Colorado, 1990.
Bookshop Santa Cruz. “Bookshop History.” Bookshop Santa Cruz.
http://www.bookshopsantacruz.com/storeinfo.
Bratton, Bruce. “The Cooperhouse.” Good Times, October 15-21, 2009.
Broadhurst, Judith. “Still Shaky.” Pacific (October 1990): 37-42.
Buffalo as an Architectural Museum. “Illustrated Architecture Dictionary.”
http://www.buffaloah.com/a/DCTNRY/vocab.html.
Burnham, John C. “A Neglected Field: The History of Natural Disasters,” Perspectives
26, no. 4 (1988), http://www.chss.montclair.edu/~landwebj/400/burnham.htm.
Cackler, Jamie. “Loans may save historic buildings.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, November 10,
1989.
Campanella, Thomas J. and Lawrence J. Vale, eds., The Resilient City. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2005
233
Cartier, Robert. “An Overview of Ohlone Culture.” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local
History Articles. http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/248.
Chase, John. The Sidewalk Companion to Santa Cruz Architecture, 3rd Edition. Santa
Cruz: The Museum of Art and History, 2005.
Chen, Beatrice. “Resist the Earthquake and Rescue Ourselves: The Reconstruction of
Tangshan after the 1976 Earthquake.” In The Resilient City, edited by Thomas J.
Campanella and Lawrence J. Vale, 235-253. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
City of Santa Cruz, “City Quake Report; a special report to Santa Cruz City Employees”
City of Santa Cruz, December, 1989.
___. “Historic Preservation in Santa Cruz.” City of Santa Cruz website,
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=357.
City of Santa Cruz, Department of Planning and Community Development. “Downtown
Now & Then: Twentieth Anniversay of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.” Santa Cruz
Historic Walking Tour Brochure, 2009.
___. Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Vol. II, Santa Cruz: City of Santa Cruz, May
1989.
Clark, Karen. “Flatiron not on list of historic buildings.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, August 17,
1991.
234
Corrigan, John J. “Worst Night in City’s History.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 23,
1955.
Craigo, Steade. “A helping hand.” In Management of Disaster Mitigation and Response
Programs for Historic Sites: A Dialogue. Proceedings of the Symposium, edited by David
W. Look and Dirk H.R. Spennemann. San Francisco: June 27-29, 1995. Available at
http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/Disaster_SFO/SFO_Craigo_Hand.html.
___. “Case study: earthquakes.” In Management of Disaster Mitigation and Response
Programs for Historic Sites: A Dialogue. Proceedings of the Symposium, edited by David
W. Look and Dirk H.R. Spennemann. San Francisco: June 27-29, 1995. Available at
http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/Disaster_SFO/SFO_Craigo_EQ.html.
Davis, Diane, “Reverberations: Mexico City’s 1985 Earthquake and the Transformation
of the Capital.” In The Resilient City, edited by Thomas J. Campanella and Lawrence J.
Vale, 255-281. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Davis, Mike. “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn.” Environmental History Review 19
(Summer 1995): 1-36.
___. Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. New York: Vintage
Books, 1998.
Dean, Dennis. “The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.” Annals of Science 50 (1993):
501-521.
235
DelVecchio, Rick Jim Doyle and Lori Olszewski. “Santa Cruz Knew Of Quake Death
Risk.” San Francisco Chronicle, November 27, 1989.
___. “Building Owners Considered Seismic Safety Too Expensive.” San Francisco
Chronicle, November 27, 1989.
Domhoff, G. William. “The Leftmost City: Power & Progressive Politics in Santa Cruz.”
Companion website, http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/santacruz.
Douglas, Jack. “Henry A. Minton: A.P. Giannini’s Architect.” Continuity: Preservation
Action Council of San Jose Newsletter 13, no. 1 (Winter 2002), 10-12,
www.preservation.org/newsletters/winter2002.pdf.
Dudley, Walter C., and Min Lee. Tsunami! 2nd Edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1998.
Dunn, Geoff and Rick Hildreth. “Razing Questions.” Pacific Monthly, undated, in the
Santa Cruz Public Libraries Newspaper Clipping File, “Historic Buildings” folder.
Eadie, Charles. “Living in Earthquake Country.” Planning, January 2005, 30-32.
Edwards, Katherine. “And the walls come tumbling down: last remains of quake falling
to the wrecking ball.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 7, 1993.
Exploratorium. “Faultlines.” San Francisco: Exploratorium, n.d.
www.exploratorium.edu/faultline/great/loma1.html.
236
Fradkin, Philip L. “Biography.” http://www.philipfradkin.com.
Fradkin, Philip L. The Great Earthquake and Firestorms of 1906: How San Francisco
Nearly Destroyed Itself. Berkeley: UC Press, 2005.
Gathright, Alan. “Loma Prieta Earthquake: 15 Years Later. Shaken – and then Stirred.”
San Francisco Chronicle, October 16, 2004, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/16/BAGUI99K7K36.DTL.
Gendron, Richard A. “Faultlines of Power: The Political Economy of Redevelopment in a
Progressive City After a Natural Disaster.” PhD diss., University of California, Santa
Cruz, 1998.
Gibson, Ross Eric. “Architect’s Row.” plaque on southwest corner of the University
Towne Center building.
___. “The Christmas Flood of ’55: Gentle Rain Inundated Santa Cruz.” Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Local History Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/287/.
___. Del Mar Theater plaque located on the storefront on the right side of the marquee.
___. “Jewish Pioneers Played a Big Role in Santa Cruz.” Santa Cruz Public Libraries,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/121.
___. “Landmark that Grew Up: Hard Childhood Served Charles Ford Well,” Santa Cruz
Public Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/229.
237
___. “The St. George was a Center of Culture and Art,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles. www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/341/.
___. “Santa Cruz Has Long History of Convention Business,” Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/353.
___. “Santa Cruz Owes Site to Spud Rush.” Santa Cruz County Public Libraries Local
History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/405.
___. “Shaky Morning in Santa Cruz: Quake Rattled Town in ’06.” Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Local History Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/262.
Good Times. “Loma Prieta Earthquake: October 17, 1989, A Look Back, A Look
Ahead.” Special Section, October 15, 2009.
“The Hihn Building,” Plaque on building’s corner at Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Street.
Horsnyder’s Pharmacy, “125 Years of Caring,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 17, 2009,
E19, advertisement.
Howe, Jeffrey, editor. The Houses We Live In: An Identification Guide to the History and
Style of American Architecture. San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2002.
“The J.J. Newberry Store.” Plaque on the northwest part of the building on the Walnut
Street side.
238
Jones, Donna. Santa Cruz: A Century. Santa Cruz: Santa Cruz Sentinel Publishers Co.,
1999.
Kariotis, John, Mike Krakower and Nels Roselund. The Engineers’ View: Loma Prieta:
Historic Buildings, Earthquake Damage & Seismic Strengthening. Oakland: California
Preservation Foundation, 1991.
KGO-TV/ABC-7 News. “News report from downtown Santa Cruz,” posted on the
Exploratorium’s “Faultline: Seismic Science at the Epicenter” website,
www.exploratorium.edu/faultline/activezone/media/vid-santacruz.html.
Koch, Margaret. “The Flatiron Building, Pacific Avenue and Front Street.” Santa Cruz
Public Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/28.
___. “The Octagon,” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/39/.
___. Santa Cruz County: Parade of the Past. Santa Cruz: Valley Publishers, 1973. Fifth
printing. Santa Cruz: Western Tanager Press/Valley Publishers, 1991.
Kreiger, Kathy. “’Spectacular, tragic’ fire draws crowd.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 6,
1992.
Lasnier, Guy. “City Hit with Damage Claim Over Building Demolition.” Santa Cruz
Sentinel, January 24, 1990.
239
___. “Engineers Don’t Agree on Safety of St. George.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 18,
1990.
___. “St. George knockdown put on hold.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 10, 1989.
Lehmann, Susan. Historic Context Statement for the City of Santa Cruz. Prepared for the
City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department, Oct. 20, 2000.
Levy, Bob. “Saving History, Façade.” San Jose Mercury News, November 9, 1989.
Limbach,Elizabeth. “Looking Back, Looking Ahead: Neal Coonerty, Bookshop Santa
Cruz.” Good Times, October 15, 2009.
Long, Tom. “Inspectors Assess Ravaged Mall.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, November 1, 1989.
___. “Mall Walls Tumble Down.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 29, 1989.
Look, David W. and Dirk H.R. Spennemann, editors. Management of Disaster Mitigation
and Response Programs for Historic Sites: A Dialogue. Proceedings of the Symposium.
San Francisco: June 27-29, 1995. Available at
http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/Disaster_SFO/SFO_Disaster_TOC.html.
Lydon, Sandy. “Loma Prieta: 20th Anniversary.” Lecture, Museum of Art and History,
Santa Cruz, CA, October 14, 2009.
240
Mader, George. “Impact of Geologic Factors on Building Permit Practices Following
Loma Prieta Earthquake in Santa Cruz County, California.” Paper presented at Hazards
Research and Applications Workshop, Boulder, Colorado, July 17, 1990.
McAlester, Lee and Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2004.
McMahon, Daniel. “Degree of Damage and Public Reaction to Floods.” Santa Cruz
Public Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/307.
___. “Floods and Flood Control on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz.”
Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/297.
___. “The History of Floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa Cruz.” Santa
Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/289.
___. “Table of Floods: Recorded Floods on the San Lorenzo River in the City of Santa
Cruz.” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/290.
Meehan, Brenda. “Santa Cruz Pacific Garden Mall: A Brief History.” Santa Cruz City
Manager’s Office pamphlet, November 1972.
241
Mendoza, Martha. “Ferrari, Elks buildings are quake’s final legacy.” Santa Cruz Sentinel,
March 6, 1993.
___. “Flatiron Building decision Thursday.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 29, 1992.
___. “Flatiron debate may put brakes on downtown.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 31, 1992.
Merritt, John F.. History at Risk: Loma Prieta, Seismic Safety and Historic Preservation.
California Preservation Foundation, 1990.
Metcalf, Mayme interview by ClaireMarie Ghelardi, June 5, 1990. “The Loma Prieta
Earthquake of Oct. 17, 1989: A UCSC Student Oral History Documentary Project.”
Transcript, edited by Irene Reti, UCSC Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, 2006.
Miller, Don. “Rumors of Wars: When downtown Santa Cruz shuddered and shook.”
Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 17, 2009, E7.
Morones, Carmen and Rech Ann Pedersen.“Santa Cruz’s Town Clock.” Santa Cruz
Public Libraries Local History Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/42.
Nakata, Daniel, et. al. “The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake: Selected
Photographs.” Denver: U.S. Geological Survey, 1995. http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-29.
Neubauer, Bill. “Questions Raised On What Are SC’s ‘Historical’ Buildings.” Santa
Cruz Sentinel, August 24, 1973.
242
Pacific Gas & Electric Company. PG&E and the Earthquake of 1989. San Francisco,
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 1990.
Charles Hall Page & Associates. Pacific Avenue Design Plan. San Francisco: 1978.
Charles Hall Page and Associates. Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey. City of Santa
Cruz, 1976.
Paradis, Tom. “Architectural Styles of America.”
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~twp/architecture.
Parker, Ann. “The Crepe Place – This Santa Cruz Landmark is Still Rolling Along After
37 Years.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 3, 2010.
Payne, Stephen Michael. “Felling the Giants.” Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History
Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/85.
Pearson, Larry. “National Register Nomination for the Pacific Avenue Historic District.”
Santa Cruz City Planning Department, 1985.
Penick, James L. The New Madrid Earthquakes. Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri
Press, 1981.
R.L. Polk and Company. Polk’s Santa Cruz (California) city directory, including
Capitola and Soquel. Monterey Park, CA: R.L. Polk & Co. 1955, 1956-57; 1974-1981;
1988.
243
Phillips, Brenda D. Disaster Recovery. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications, 2009.
Phipps, Edward. “Overview of Fire Service Responses near the Epicenter of the Loma
Prieta Earthquake.” Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco, n.d.
http://sfmuseum.net/1989/report.html.
Pyne, Stephen J. “The Fire This Time, and Next.” Science 294, no. 5544 (November 2,
2001), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3084934.
___.“Flame and Fortune,” New Republic (August 8, 1994): 19-20.
___. “Wildlands: The Firefight,” Whole Earth Winter (1999): 59-60.
Quarnstrom, Lee. “Owner asks to raze Flatiron Building.” San Jose Mercury News, July
26, 1991.
Raymond, Joan. “Comission will begin culling homes from historic survey.” Santa Cruz
Sentinel, May 22, 1986.
___. “Historic listings protested.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, undated, in the Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Newspaper Clipping file “Historic Buildings” folder.
Reader, Phil. “Timeline for the Establishment of the Pueblo de Branciforte.” Santa Cruz
Public Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/250.
244
Reti, Irene, ed. The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989: A UCSC Student Oral
History Documentary Project. Santa Cruz, CA: UC Santa Cruz Library, 2006.
Reynolds, Pamela. “The Great Santa Cruz Fire of 1894.” Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/311.
Robinson, John. “Public works commission updates earthquake repairs.” Santa Cruz
Sentinel, November 21, 1989.
Rogers, Paul. “2 Santa Cruz buildings face wrecker’s ball.” San Jose Mercury News,
January 1, 1991.
___. “Buildings can be saved, report says.” San Jose Mercury News, March 14, 1991.
___. “Fire gutted landmark may be doomed.” San Jose Mercury News, March 7, 1992.
___. “Flatiron will be flattened.” San Jose Mercury News, September 28, 1992.
___. “Santa Cruz may lose its ‘historic’ status,” San Jose Mercury News, February 1,
1991.
___. “Trust Building goes up in flames.” San Jose Mercury News, March 6, 1992.
Rommel, Howell, interview by Elizabeth Spedding Calciano, 1973, “The 1955 Flood.”
Transcript, UCSC Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, CA.
245
Rosen, Christine Meisner. “Business, Democracy, and Progressive Reform in the
Redevelopment of Baltimore after the Great Fire of 1904.” The Business History Review
63 (Summer 1989): 283-328.
Rowland, Leon. Santa Cruz: The Early Years. Santa Cruz: Paper Vision Press, 1980.
San Francisco Earthquake Research Project, “Santa Cruz County 911 Recording
Transcription, Oct. 17, 1989,” Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco,1990,
http://www.sfmuseum.net/1989/sc911.html.
Santacruz.com. “Earthquake Collage.” Special Section, October 14-21, 2009.
Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company. “A Brief History of the Roaster.” Santa Cruz
Coffee Roasting Company,
http://www.santacruzcoffee.com/sccrctest/pages/briefhistory1.html. Accessed March 10,
2010.
Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Database. “Parcel Information.”
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.us/ASR.
Santa Cruz Old Timers Association. Samuel Leask: Transplanted Scot, Citizen Par
Excellence. Privately published, October 11, 1964.
246
Santa Cruz Public Libraries. “Album: Remembering the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.”
Santa Cruz Public Libraries, Local History Gallery,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/gallery2/v/1989quake/.
___. “Album: SCPL Local History Postcard Collection.” Santa Cruz Public Libraries,
Local History Gallery, http://www.santacruzpl.org/gallery2/v/postcards.
___. “Downtown Buildings Demolished.” Santa Cruz, CA: Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/disaster/dembldg.shtml.
___. “Facts About the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.” Santa Cruz, CA: Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/disaster/89quake.shtml.
___. “Photographic Gallery of Pacific Avenue.” Santa Cruz, CA: Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Local History Articles, http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/places/pacave.shtml.
Santa Cruz Sentinel. “15 Seconds That Changed Us: Aftershocks.” Special Section,
October 17, 2009.
___. 5:04 p.m. The Great Quake of 1989: A Pictoral of the Devastation in Santa Cruz
County. Santa Cruz, CA: Santa Cruz Sentinel Publishers Co., 1990.
___. “Avenue damage severe.” December 23, 1955.
___, advertisement, January 1, 1956.
247
___. “Destruction and preservation: Gentle demolition of old bank building.” undated, in
the Santa Cruz Public Libraries “Earthquake – City of Santa Cruz” newspaper clipping
file.
___. “Earthquake notes.” April 19, 1906.
___. “Earthquake paragraphs.” April 20, 1906.
___. “Earthquake quakes.” April 21, 1906.
___. “Editorial – Anniversary of the Flood.” December 23, 1956.
____.
Flood photo montage. December 29, 1955.
___. “Greatest Deluge disrupts business; river rises again.” December 23, 1955.
___. “Loma Prieta: 20 Years After.” Santa Cruz Sentinel website,
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/earthquake.
___. “Most terrible and destructive earthquake.” April 18, 1906.
___. “One Quake, Two Downtowns.” October 17, 2009.
___. “Partial Damage in Downtown $1.8 Million.” December 25, 1955.
___. photo montage. December 28, 1955.
___. Photograph, page 2, 7, January 2, 1956.
248
___. “Records in Courthouse are damaged.” December 25, 1955.
___. “San Lorenzo on Worst Rampage of Century,” February 28, 1940.
Santa Cruz Weekly Sentinel. “Local News.” April 28, 1906.
___. “Local News.” May 5, 1906.
Sawislak, Karen. Chicagoans and the Great Fire, 1871-1874. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1995.
Schmidt, Karen. “Pride in the Past: County is rich in history, poor in preservation.” Santa
Cruz Sentinel, October 27, 1991.
Segall, Paul. “New Insights into Old Earthquakes.” Nature, 388 (1997): 121-122.
Shemaria, Elizabeth. “The New Downtown: How 15 Seconds and 20 Years Changed
Downtown Santa Cruz.” Master’s Thesis, UC Berkeley, 2009. Multimedia Presentation,
available at www.elizabethshemaria.com.
Smith, Carl. “Faith and Doubt: The Imaginative Dimensions of the Great Chicago Fire.”
In American Disasters, edited by Steven Biel, 129-169. New York: New York University
Press, 2001.
Snyder, Martha.“Trust Building destruction under way.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 9,
1992.
249
___. “Trust Building must be razed.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 17, 1992.
___.“Trust Building owners seek demolition.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 14, 1992.
Souza, Margaret. “The History of the Santa Cruz Courthouse.” Santa Cruz Public
Libraries Local History Articles, www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/1/.
___. “The History of the Santa Cruz Public Library System: Part 2 – 1881 – 1904.” Santa
Cruz Public Libraries Local History Articles,
http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/articles/366.
Skinner, Quinton, interview by Jonathan Shapiro, 1989. “The Loma Prieta Earthquake of
October 17, 1989: A UCSC Student Oral History Documentary Project.” Transcript,
edited by Irene Reti, UCSC Regional History Project, Santa Cruz, 2006.
State of California, Office of Historic Preservation. “Disaster Preparedness and
Planning.” Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25506;
___. “Pacific Avenue Historic District, Santa Cruz, California, Amendment,” March 16,
1992.
___. “Disaster Recovery.” Office of Historic Preservation,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25507.
___. “Disaster Response.” Office of Historic Preservation,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25510;
250
State of California, Seismic Safety Commission. Planning for the Next One: Transcripts
of Hearings on the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989. Sacramento: n.d.
Steinberg, Ted. Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Disaster in America, 2nd Edition.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Steinberg, Ted. “Smoke and Mirrors: The San Francisco Earthquake and Seismic
Denial.” In American Disasters, edited by Steven Biel, 103-126. New York: New York
University Press, 2001.
Swift, Carolyn. “Old Landmarks Bring History to Life.” Mid-County Post, May 30, 1995.
United States Geological Survey. “1906 Ground Motion Simulations.” Denver, USGS,
2007. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/1906/simulations/mapview.php.
___. “Large Earthquakes in the United States.” Denver: USGS, 2005.
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/usa/1989_10_18.html.
___. Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country: Your Handbook for the San Francisco
Bay Region. Denver: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005.
University of California, Santa Cruz, Library Special Collections. Photos. Santa Cruz
County History Digital Collections,
http://digitalcollections.ucsc.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%Fp265101coll23/.
Willey, Bruce. “When the Earth Rolled Over.” Good Times, October 15, 2009.
251
Wilson, Alia. “Somber Remembrance.” Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 18, 2009.
Wilson, Donald L.. “Memories in the rubble of the Cooper House.” Santa Cruz Sentinel,
October 27, 1989.
Wilson, Richard C.. The Loma Prieta Quake: What One City Learned. Washington D.C.:
International City Management Association, 1991.
Wollenberg, Charles, “Life on the Seismic Frontier: The Great San Francisco Earthquake
(Of 1868),” California History 71, no. 4 (Winter 1992/1993),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25161625.
Zoccoli’s Delicastessen. “This History of Zoccoli’s Deli.” Zoccoli’s Deli,
http://www.zoccolis.com.