Dolores Park HRER Draft 2011-08-12

8/4/2019 Dolores Park HRER Draft 2011-08-12

1/143

imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology

Page &Turnbull

Historic resource evaluation

San FranciSco, caliFornia

[11073]Pp f

San FranciSco recreation and Park dePartment

auguSt 12, 201

DraFt

Mission Dolores Park


2/143


3/143

Historic Resource Evaluation Mission Dolores ParkPreliminary Draft Subject to Revision San Francisco, California

August 12, 2011 Page & Turnbull, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT................................................................................................................ 1

METHOD OLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 1SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 2

II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS ............................................................................ 4NA TI ONAL REGISTER OF HIST ORIC PLACES .................................................................................... 4CA LIFO RNIA REGIS TER OF HISTORICAL RESOU RCES ...................................................................... 4SAN FRANCISCO CI TY LANDMARKS ................................................................................................. 4CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE..................................................................... 5SAN FRANCIS CO ARCHI TECT URAL HERITAGE ................................................................................ 51976 DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY SURVEY............................. 5O THER SURVEYS ................................................................................................................................. 6

III. DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................... 7O VERALL SI TE ...................................................................................................................................... 7LAND USE ............................................................................................................................................ 7T OPOGR APH Y ..................................................................................................................................... 7VEGETA TI ON ....................................................................................................................................... 8CI RCU LA TI ON ................................................................................................................................... 12INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................ 14FURNISHIN GS .................................................................................................................................... 17BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ....................................................................................................... 19VIEWS AND VISTAS ............................................................................................................................ 21

IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT........................................................................................ 23MISSION DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY ........................................................................... 23SAN FRANCISCO PLAYG ROUN D AND PARKS HIST OR Y ................................................................ 27

V. MISSION DOLORES PARK CULTURAL LANDSCAPE HISTORY...................... 36EARLY HIS TORY (1776 - 1859) .......................................................................................................... 36

JEWISH CEMETERIES TO MISSION PARK (1860 - 1904) ................................................................... 39MISSION PARKS FIRST DECADE (1905 - 1915)................................................................................. 46STREE TC ARS AND PLA YG ROUN DS (1916 1946).......................................................................... 61POST-WAR RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS (1947-1966)........................................................... 75

MODERN PARK USES (1967 - 2011).................................................................................................. 81 V. EVALUATION...................................................................................................... 86


4/143


August 12, 2011 Page & Turnbull, Inc.

NA TI ONAL REGISTER OF HIST ORIC PLACES .................................................................................. 86C ONTR IBU TING FEATURES ............................................................................................................. 89IN TEGRITY ......................................................................................................................................... 89

VI. CONTEXT & RELATIONSHIP........................................................................... 92VII. CEQA FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS.......... 93

A. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMEN T QU ALI TY ACT (CEQA)................................................................ 93B. CITY AND C OUN TY OF SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CEQA REVIEW

PR OCEDURES FOR HISTOR IC RES OU RCES .................................................................................... 94D. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS STANDARDS FOR T HE TREATMENT OF HIST ORIC

PR OPER TIES ....................................................................................................................................... 95IX. CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 97 X. REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................ 98

REP OS ITORIES ................................................................................................................................... 98PUBLISHED WORKS .......................................................................................................................... 98PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................................................................................................. 99NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS .................................................................................................. 100UNPUBLISHED MANUSC RIPT S AND DRAWIN GS ......................................................................... 101INTERNET SOURCES....................................................................................................................... 102

XI. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 103APPENDIX A: THEN AND NOW FIGURE COMPARISONS ......................................................... 103APPENDIX B: TIME PERIODS AND CONTRIBUTING FEATURES MAP.......................................... 120APPENDIX C: HISTOR IC MAPS AND AERIAL VIEWS ...................................................................... 121APPENDIX D: C ON VENIEN CE STA TI ON /C LUBHOUSE DRAWIN GS ........................................... 128APPENDIX E: MUNI J-LINE TRACK AND PEDEST RIAN BRIDGE DRAWINGS ............................... 132


5/143


August 12, 2011 Page & Turnbull, Inc.- 1 -

I. INTRODUCTION

This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of the San FranciscoRecreation and Park Department to evaluate the potential historic significance of cultural landscapefeatures at Mission Dolores Park (APN 3586-001). The 291,198 square foot park is located inSan Franciscos Mission Dolores neighborhood (Figure 1). It encompasses a variety of passive and

organized uses, including picnic areas, a sports field, tennis and basketball courts, walking paths, anda playground (currently undergoing reconstruction).

Figure 1: Location of Mission Dolores Park, Mission District, San Francisco.

(Source: AND, NAVTEQ, Microsoft Corporation. Image courtesy of USGS).

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The proposed project at Mission Dolores Park is a rehabilitation and improvement project designedto accommodate the programmatic needs of the site as a community recreational facility. The projectis in the schematic phase and will not be analyzed for CEQA compliance in this report. Ultimately,however, the proposed work at Mission Dolores Park is intended to meet the Secretary of the InteriorsStandards for Rehabilitation(Secretarys Standards) and retain the parks character-defining features andoverall historic character.

The purpose of this report is to identify character-defining features and evaluate the propertyseligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of HistoricalResources. This report does not include an evaluation of a proposed project under the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for theTreatment of Historic Properties.

METHODOLOGY

This report follows the outline provided by the San Francisco Planning Department for HistoricResource Evaluation Reports, in combination with guidelines for cultural landscape evaluation from


6/143



A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques(Robert R. Page, Cathy A. Gilbert& Susan A. Dolan, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington D.C., 1998)andNational Register Bulletin No. 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes(J.

Timothy Keller and Genevieve P. Keller, Land and Community Associates for the U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National Park Service, n.d.). The report provides a physical description and historiccontext for Mission Dolores Park, as well as an examination of the existing historical status of the

property. This material informs the identification of contributing features and evaluation of theparks potential eligibility for state and national historic registers.

Page & Turnbull staff conducted a site visit in July 2011, where they recorded notes about the parksfeatures, drew diagrams, and took digital photographs. Page & Turnbull prepared this report usingresearch collected at various repositories, including the San Francisco Public Library; San FranciscoDepartment of Public Works; City of San Francisco Recreation and Parks Archive; Online Archiveof California; and the University of California Calisphere Photographic Collection. Other materialscollected for this report were accessed via online sources, including Library of Congress Historic

American Newspapers collection; San Francisco Park & Recreation Commission minutes via InternetArchive; various historic articles accessed via the San Francisco Public Librarys online databases, aswell as the Google Books and News Archive features. The identification of tree species within the

park is primarily based on Tree Assessment, Mission Dolores Park (N. Side), prepared by HortScience, Inc.for the San Francisco Recreation & Park Department in July 2011.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This Historic Resource Evaluation finds that Mission Dolores Park is individually eligible for listingin the National Register of Historic Places in the area of local significance as a designed historiclandscape under Criterion A (Event). It was identified primarily for its association with ProgressiveEra ideals in park planning which led directly to the acquisition and development of numerous smallneighborhood parks and playgrounds in San Francisco around the turn of the twentieth century.Several other historically significant trends are also associated with the development of the park,including the parks association with relief efforts following the 1906 Earthquake and Fire, as well as

the arrival of the Mission District as a forceful entity in San Francisco politics. During the mid-twentieth century, the park was also strongly identified with the evolution of the Mission District as alargely Hispanic neighborhood.

In addition, this study finds that the park is eligible under Criterion C (Design/Construction) as anexcellent example of San Franciscos reform or rational parks. Such parks were developed inaccordance with Progressive Era and City Beautiful ideals, which dominated San Franciscos politicaland social landscape during the early twentieth century. The park is also significant under thiscriterion as an example of the work of master gardener John McLaren, Superintendant of GoldenGate Park for nearly six decades. McLaren completed the initial design of Mission Dolores Park in1905, and was responsible for supervising the crews that landscaped the park. He also designed theconvenience station (now called the clubhouse) installed in the park circa 1913, and almost certainly

was consulted on the design of other park amenities. Despite the accretion of various new featuresand landscape plantings over the years, McLarens initial design for the park remains readilyidentifiable.

The period of significance for Mission Dolores Park begins in 1905, the year that it was formallyacquired by the City and County of San Francisco for use as a park. The period of significance endsin 1966, the year the Mexican Liberty Bell was installed in recognition of the Mission Districtsprominent Hispanic identity. On the whole, Mission Dolores Park retains integrity of location,


7/143



design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey its significance throughoutthe entire period of significance from 1905 to 1966.

The following landscape characteristics were identified as crucial to defining the overall character ofthe designed historic landscape: land use, topography, vegetation, circulation, infrastructure,furnishings, buildings and structures, and views and vistas. These characteristics help identify and

articulate the propertys historic significance, and are based upon accepted National Park Servicemethodology for the assessment of designed historic landscapes. Based on the information includedin this study, the defining landscape characteristics for Mission Dolores Park include its open space,circulation systems, buildings and structures, landscaping, and small-scale furnishings whichcontribute to the overall historic character of the property. Those features that were installed duringthe period of significance are considered contributing features to the historic landscape.


8/143



II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS

The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned toMission Dolores Park:

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACESThe National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nations most comprehensiveinventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Serviceand includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural,engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.

Mission Dolores Park is not currently listed in the National Register, but it has it been previouslyevaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register as a contributing resource to the MissionDolores Neighborhood 1906 Fire Survivors and Reconstruction Historic District (see OtherSurveys below).

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES

The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significantarchitectural, archaeological, and historic resources in the State of California. Resources can be listedin the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and NationalRegister-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also benominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. Theevaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on thosedeveloped by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.

Mission Dolores Park is not currently listed in the California Register, but it has it been previouslyevaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register as a contributing resource to the MissionDolores Neighborhood 1906 Fire Survivors and Reconstruction Historic District (see Other

Surveys below).

SAN FRANCISCO CITY LANDMARKS

San Francisco City Landmarks are buildings, properties, structures, sites, districts and objects ofspecial character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value and are an importantpart of the Citys historical and architectural heritage.1 Adopted in 1967 as Article 10 of the CityPlanning Code, the San Francisco City Landmark program protects listed buildings frominappropriate alterations and demolitions through review by the San Francisco Historic PreservationCommission. These properties are important to the citys history and help to provide significant andunique examples of the past that are irreplaceable. In addition, these landmarks help to protect thesurrounding neighborhood from inappropriate development and enhance the educational andcultural dimension of the city.

Mission Dolores Park is not currently designated as a San Francisco City Landmark or a Structure ofMerit.

1 San Francisco Planning Department, Preservation Bulletin No. 9 Landmarks. (San Francisco, CA: January 2003)


9/143



CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE

Properties listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation areassigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of 1 to 7 to establish theirhistorical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places or California Register ofHistorical Resources. These assigned Status Codes are inventoried in the California Historic

Resources Information System (CHRIS) database. Properties with a Status Code of 1 or 2 areeither eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register, or are already listed in oneor both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of 3 or 4 appear to be eligible forlisting in either register, but normally require more research to support this rating. Propertiesassigned a Status Code of 5 have typically been determined to be locally significant or to havecontextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of 6 are not eligible for listing in eitherregister. Finally, a Status Code of 7 means that the resource has not been evaluated for theNational Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation.

As of the October 2010 listing of the CHRIS database, Mission Dolores Park had not been assigneda California Historical Resource Status Code.

SAN FRANCISCO ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE

San Francisco Architectural Heritage (Heritage) is the citys oldest not-for-profit organizationdedicated to increasing awareness and preservation of San Franciscos unique architectural heritage.Heritage has completed several major architectural surveys in San Francisco, the most important of

which was the 1977-1978 Downtown Survey. This survey, published as Splendid Survivorsin 1978,forms the basis of San Franciscos Downtown Plan. Heritage ratings, which range from D (minoror no importance) to A (highest importance), are analogous to Categories V through I of Article 11of the San Francisco Planning Code. In 1984, the original survey area was expanded from theDowntown to include the South of Market area in a survey called Splendid Extended.

Mission Dolores Parkis located outside the boundaries of the area surveyed and thereforewas notgiven a Heritage rating as part of the Downtown Plan/Survey.

1976 DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY SURVEY

The 1976 Department of City Planning Architectural Quality Survey (1976 DCP Survey) is what isreferred to in preservation parlance as a reconnaissance or windshield survey. The survey lookedat the entire City and County of San Francisco to identify and rate architecturally significant buildingsand structures on a scale of -2 (detrimental) to +5 (extraordinary). No research was performedand the potential historical significance of a resource was not considered when a rating was assigned.Buildings rated 3 or higher in the survey represent approximately the top two percent of SanFranciscos building stock in terms of architectural significance. However, it should be noted herethat the 1976 DCP Survey has come under increasing scrutiny over the past decade due to the fact

that it has not been updated in over twenty-five years. As a result, the 1976 DCP Survey has notbeenofficially recognized by the San Francisco Planning Department as a valid local register of historicresources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Mission Dolores Park is not listed in the 1976 DCP Survey.


10/143



OTHER SURVEYS

In February 2009, Carey & Co. conducted a field survey of 183 previously undocumented parcels,including Mission Dolores Park, in the Mission Dolores neighborhood. The results of this survey

were presented in the Revised Mission Dolores Neighborhood Survey, Volumes 1 & 2, completed inNovember 2009. Carey & Co. found that Mission Dolores Park was eligible as a contributing

resource to the Mission Dolores Neighborhood 1906 Fire Survivors and Reconstruction HistoricDistrict, described as encapsulating the settlement and development of San Francisco from 1791 to1918.2 The findings of this survey (with modifications) were adopted by the San Francisco HistoricPreservation Commission (HPC) during a hearing held on March 17, 2010. The HPC providedfurther clarification on January 19, 2011 by adopting additional findings explicitly stating that MissionDolores Park, as well as the Dolores Street Median between Market Street and 20th Street, wereincluded as contributors to the identified historic district. As a result of these actions, the SanFrancisco Planning Department considers the historic district (which includes Mission Dolores Parkas a contributing element) a historic resource for the purposes of the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA).

2 Carey & Co., Revised Mission Dolores Neighborhood Survey Volume 1 of 2(San Francisco, CA: Carey & Co., 2009), 4.


11/143



III. DESCRIPTION

OVERALL SITE

Mission Dolores Park is an approximately 13.7 acre city park located on a rectangular plot of land inSan Franciscos Mission Dolores neighborhood. The property encompasses 291,198 square feet and

is bounded by 18th

Street to the north, Dolores Street to the east, 20th

Street to the south, and ChurchStreet to the west. Two- to four-story single-family residences, flats, and apartment buildings in avariety of styles face the park on the east, south, and west. Prominent buildings located opposite thepark include Mission High School located on the north side of 18th Street, as well as the SecondChurch of Christ Scientist and a former Lutheran church on the east side of Dolores Street.

LAND USE

Mission Dolores Park is used as a city park and playground. Features for passive recreation include aplayground, walking paths, picnic areas, wide expanses of lawn, and a dog play area. Features fororganized recreation include tennis and basketball courts at the northern end of the park, as well as afield at the northwestern end occasionally used for soccer. A pedestrian boulevard bisects the park atits center, running east-to-west along the line of 19th Street. Near the center of this boulevard is a

circular roundabout, with a clubhouse building located immediately southeast. The clubhousebuilding includes restrooms at its base, and a portion of this building is also used by Recreation &Park employees for storage. The Municipal Railroad J-Line runs north-south through the west side ofthe park. It includes a prominent pedestrian bridge crossing the tracks along the line of 19th Street, as

well as an abandoned MUNI stop adjacent to the tracks below the bridge. Two other active MUNIstops are located at the northwestern and southwestern corners of the park.

TOPOGRAPHY

The topography of Mission Dolores Park is dominated by a prominent slope from southwest tonortheast. The highest point in the park is located at the southwest corner near the intersection ofChurch and 20th streets, while the lowest point is located near the intersection of Dolores and 18thstreets. The overall slope of the park is interrupted in several areas by graded terraces and fields. This

includes two terraces located at the south end of the park which wrap around and merge into asloping hill on the southwest side of the park(Figure 2). The terracing creates a bowl toward thesouth end of the park which contains a playground currently under reconstruction. Three otherterraces are located immediately north of the bisecting pedestrian boulevard, paralleling theboulevard and curving along the west side of the park into two tiers (Figure 3). This creates asecond bowl that flattens out into a sports field. The north end of the park is generally flat, andfeatures tennis and basketball courts that are slightly elevated above 18th Street.

The MUNI J-Line tracks at the west end of the park are located in a sunken man-made viaduct. Thewest side of the tracks is paralleled by a paved pedestrian walkway and a vegetated slope that rises upto Church Street. On the eastern side of the tracks, the land slopes upward to meet another pavedpedestrian walkway.


12/143



Figure 2. Terracing at the south end of the parkparallel to 20th Street, looking west.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Figure 3. Terracing and field at the northwestend of the park, looking northwest.

(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

VEGETATION

Lawns occupy the majority of the property, interspersed with other plantings which tend to beconcentrated in discrete areas. Only one tree species, the California bay, is native to the area.Southern magnolia trees (Magnolia grandiflora) are placed at regular intervals along the borders at 18th,and 20th streets (Figure 4). These magnolias are interspersed with a New Zealand Christmas tree(Metrosideros excelsa) and red-flowering gum trees (Corymbia ficifolia) on 18th Street. Dolores Street islined with an assortment of trees, including Southern magnolias, Blackwood acacias (Acaciamelanoxylon), Turkish sweetgums (Liquidambar orientalis), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius),Canary Island Date Palm (Phoenix canariensisis), and fig trees (Ficus carica).

There is a small line of Victorian box trees (Pittosporum undulatum) and New Zealand Christmas treessouth of the tennis and basketball courts at the northwest end of the park(Figure 5). A cluster of

Tikoti (Alectryon excelsus) and Japanese Privet trees (Ligustrum japonicum)is located south of thenortheast tennis courts. A fig tree and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) are located north of theplaza at the east end of the pedestrian boulevard.

Figure 4. Magnolia trees on 18th Street, lookingwest.


Figure 5. Row of trees north of northwest tennisand basketball courts.



13/143



Among the prominent trees within the park are Canary Island Date Palms. Two of these palms flankthe plaza, while a tall Canary Island Date Palm is located at the center of the pedestrian boulevardroundabout (Figure 6). A cluster of six Canary Island Date palms are planted northeast of thisroundabout (Figure 7), while another cluster of six palms borders the west side of the clubhouse.

Figure 6. Canary Island Date Palm in the centerof the pedestrian boulevard, looking west.


Figure 7. Canary Island Date Palms on the edgeof the north lawn, looking northeast.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Eight blackwood acacias are planted near the east end of the pedestrian bridge, and eight Victorianbox trees are located north of the pedestrian boulevard nearby. The two paved picnic table areas(known as card table areas on earlier plans) southwest of the pedestrian boulevard were originallysurrounded by hedges; tall olive trees (Olea europaea) now exist in the west area, which is currentlyoccupied by storage containers.

At the time of field survey in July 2011, twenty-three Guadalupe palm (Brahea edulis) trees wereplanted in the bowl toward the southwest end of the park, next to the playground area (Figures 8

and 9). However, grading activities associated with reconstruction of the playground havesubsequently removed six of these trees. Another cluster of five Guadalupe palms flank the paved

walkway toward the northwest end of the park(Figure 10). Three Mexican fan palms (Mexican fanrobusta) are located south of this cluster. Four more Guadalupe palms are located at the southernedge of the north field, along with two Mexican fan palms (Figure 11).

Figure 8. Guadalupe Palms west of theplayground, looking north.

Figure 9. Guadalupe Palms southwest of theplayground, looking east.


14/143



(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011) (Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Figure 10. Guadalupe Palms flanking walkwayat northwest side of park, looking east.


Figure 11. Guadalupe and Mexican Fan palmsnorth of the pedestrian boulevard, looking east.


Three small magnolia trees are located south of the plaza at 19th and Dolores streets. A group of nineMexican fan palms are located farther south at the east edge of the park by Dolores Street, halfwaybetween 19th and 20th streets (Figure 12). A thick, closely planted circle of Canary Island Date Palmsare situated south of the Mexican fan palms near Dolores Street (Figure 13).


15/143



Figure 12. Small magnolia trees with cluster ofMexican fan palms beyond, looking south.


Figure 13. Cluster of Canary Island Date palmsat southeast corner of park, view east.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

A group of California bay trees (Umbellularia californica) are located at the east side of the playground,and two clusters with five and six magnolia trees each border the north edge of the playground.

Three Montezuma cypress trees (Taxodium mucronatum)are located on the north side of the curvingdriveway, between the playground and Dolores Street.

On the west side of the park by the MUNI tracks, a cluster of three California pepper trees (Schinusmolle)and three Mexican fan palms are planted along the walkway east of the MUNI tracks between19th and 20th streets. Rosemary bushes, agapanthus bushes, rose bushes, Monterey pine, a palm tree,and anise are among the variety of plants and trees planted along the west walkway between thetracks and Church Street (Figures 14 - 16).

A garden containing a variety of plants and flowers and enclosed by a low vine fence is located at thesouthwest corner at Church and 20th streets (Figure 17), and four avocado trees (Persea americana) are

situated near the corner, immediately east of the southwest MUNI station.

Figure 14. Rose bush toward the north end ofthe west walkway, looking south.


Figure 15. Various trees along the west walkway,looking south.



16/143



Figure 16. Various trees and bushes toward thesouth end of the west walkway, looking south.


Figure 17. Garden at the southwest corner of thepark, looking southwest.


CIRCULATION

The most prominent circulation feature is a broad paved pedestrian boulevard (originally called theNineteenth Street Boulevard when it was designed) that runs east-west and bisects the park intonorthern and southern sections. The trajectory of the pedestrian boulevard corresponds with 19thStreet on either side of the park. The pedestrian boulevard features two paved walkways bordered byconcrete sidewalks and gutters (Figure 18). The walkways are divided by center islands of plantedgrass and a circular roundabout near the clubhouse. The west end terminates in a statue of MiguelGuadalupe Hidalgo y Costilla and concrete stairs that lead to a pedestrian bridge over the MUNItracks (Figure 19). A plaza is situated at the east end of the pedestrian boulevard, adjacent toDolores Street. The paved plaza was built as part of the installation of the Mexican Liberty Bell. Itfeatures concrete steps from Dolores Street, concrete aggregate paving, concrete curbs/walls on the

north and south sides, and is bordered by large metal chain-link ropes.

Figure 18. Pedestrian walkway, looking easttoward Dolores and 19th streets.


Figure 19. West end of the pedestrian walkway,looking northwest.


At the north end of the park, a paved walking path runs east-west on the south side of the northeastcluster of tennis courts. A concrete gutter also skirts the south edge of the courts. A paved path runs


17/143



north-south between the clustered tennis courts and the basketball court to the west (Figure 20). Itfeatures a ramp north to 18th Street and connects to the east-west walkway via concrete stairs(Figure 21).

Figure 20. Paved walkway between tennis and

basketball courts, looking south from 18th Street.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Figure 21. Paved paths around the northeast

cluster of tennis courts, looking northwest.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

A curving paved driveway originates at Dolores Street between 19th and 20th streets and loops pastthe south and west sides of the playground before heading north to the clubhouse (Figure 22).

Another new paved driveway begins at Dolores Street, just south of the Mexican Liberty Bell plaza,and arcs northwest to the pedestrian boulevard (Figure 23). Both of these driveways are accessedfrom Dolores Street through swinging metal gates. A paved walking path also parallels 20th Street atthe south end of the park.

Figure 22. Paved driveway that curves around

playground, looking west from Dolores Street.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Figure 23. Paved driveway to pedestrian

boulevard, looking west from Dolores Street.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Paved walkways also run parallel to the MUNI streetcar tracks. The western-most walkway isbordered by concrete curbs with beveled corners (Figure 24). Concrete stairs connect Church Streetto the western walkway at three locations: a center access point at the intersection of 19th and Churchstreets to the pedestrian bridge, and two at half-way points between 18th and 19th streets and 19th and20th streets (Figure 25). The east walkway originates at the corner of 18th and Church streets by the


18/143



MUNI stop. A concrete retaining wall supports the grassy hill next to the tennis courts on the eastside of the walkway entrance.

Figure 24. West walkway bordered by concretecurbs, looking south.


Figure 25. Stairs from west walkway to ChurchStreet between 19th & 20th streets, looking west.


The MUNI streetcar line is a public transportation circulation path that runs roughly parallel toChurch Street between 18th and 20th streets.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Walls and Fences

Chain-link fences surround the tennis and basketball courts at the north end of the park, and a V-shaped chain-link fence covers the pedestrian bridge to the west (Figure 26).

A low concrete wall with pylons and metal poles lines the west border of the park at Church Street

(Figure 27). The plaza for the Mexican Liberty Bell features concrete curbs/walls on the north andsouth sides, and is bordered by large metal chain-link ropes.

Figure 26. V-shaped fence over the pedestrianbridge, looking east.


Figure 27. Low concrete wall with pylons alongwest boundary at Church Street, looking south.



19/143



Lights

Five metal street lights illuminate the MUNI stop and street corner at 18th and Church streets. Theentrance from Church Street to the pedestrian bridge is flanked by two original fluted metalelectroliers, or light standards, which exist today without the lanterns on top (Figure 28). One tallmetal street light illuminates the south MUNI stop platform, while seven fluted metal light standardsline the paved walkway on the east side of the MUNI tracks (Figure 29). The original MUNI stop, at

the base of the bridge and stairs, does not have any lights.

Three light standards border the curving path between the playground and clubhouse (Figure 30).

One light standard is located at the intersection of paths between the northeast tennis courts and thebasketball court, and new light standards with two to three lamps each illuminate the courts (Figure31).

Figure 28. Electroliers without globes at thestairs at Church and 19th streets, looking

northwest.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Figure 29. Fluted lights by the walkway thatparallels the east side of the MUNI tracks,

looking southeast.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)


20/143



MUNI Infrastructure

The MUNI tracks includes T-shaped metal electrical poles for the lines above the tracks (Figure 32),as well as concrete gutters and curbs along the length of the tracks (Figure 33). The platforms onboth sides of the tracks at 18th and Church streets are accessed by concrete steps and concrete ADA-accessible ramps (Figure 34). The south MUNI stop at 20th and Church streets features newersquare concrete pavers (Figure 35).

Figure 32. MUNI tracks and T-shaped electricalpole, looking southeast.


Figure 33. Concrete curbs and gutters flankingMUNI tracks, looking south.


Figure 30. Light standard by curving path,looking north.


Figure 31. Light standard by tennis courts,looking southwest.



21/143



Figure 34. ADA-accessible ramp at west side ofMUNI J-line stop at 18th and Church streets,

looking north.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Figure 35. MUNI J-line stop at 20th and Churchstreets, looking northeast.


FURNISHINGS

Benches

Most benches are concentrated in the southern half of the park. Two wood benches are located nextto the walkway that flanks the east side of the MUNI tracks (Figure 36). Another three are locatedalong the paved path that curves to the southwest from the clubhouse. Four wooden benches line20th Street at the south edge of the park. Three of these benches do not have backs (Figure 37).

Another wooden bench with a back is located at the southwest corner of the park near the MUNIstop.

Figure 36. Wood benches next to walkway on

east side of MUNI tracks, looking south.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Figure 37. Wood bench along 20th Street,

looking southwest.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Sculptural Objects

A statue of Mexican War of Independence leader Miguel Guadalupe Hidalgo y Costillo is located atthe west end of the pedestrian boulevard before the bridge (Figure 38). The pedestal is square andmade of granite, while the statue is bronze. A replica of the Mexican Liberty Bell is located in aplaza at the east end of the pedestrian boulevard, near Dolores Street (Figure 39).


22/143



Figure 38. Statue of Miguel Guadalupe Hidalgoy Costillo, looking west.


Figure 39. Replica of Mexican Liberty Bell,looking southwest.


Sports Facilities

A cluster of five tennis courts is located at the northeast corner of the park, by 18th and Doloresstreets (Figure 40). The courts are oriented so that players face north and south. A basketball courtand another tennis court are located to the northwest; these courts are oriented so that players faceeast and west (Figure 41). A rectangular sports field, 270 feet long by 190 feet wide, is leveled out onthe north lawn.

Figure 40. Northeast cluster of tennis courts,looking northeast.


Figure 41. Northwest tennis court andbasketball court, looking northeast.


Picnic Areas

There are two paved picnic areas west of the clubhouse. One contains two wood picnic tables, andthe other is occupied by metal storage containers (Figures 42 and 43).


23/143



Figure 42. Paved picnic area with wood tables,looking southeast.


Figure 43. Paved picnic area with storagecontainers, looking southeast.


BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

Clubhouse

The clubhouse is a two-story, rectangular-plan, wood frame building with stucco siding. The buildingis capped by a hipped roof. It features projecting piers clad in scored stucco at the northeast andsoutheast corners. The ground floor is capped by a paneled frieze and cornices. The north faadefeatures two doors and steel-sash windows at the ground floor level and six aluminum-sash awning

windows with wire glass, separated into groups of three, at the second story(Figure 44). The doorslead to the mens restroom and storage. The east faade has three vents at the ground floor and sixaluminum-sash windows at the second floor (Figure 45). The south faade is similar to the northfaade, but contains one door, which leads to the womens restroom (Figure 46). The west faadefeatures concrete steps with metal railings that lead to paired doors flanked by aluminum-sash

windows (Figure 47). This entrance accesses the clubhouse space.

Figure 44. East and north facades of clubhouse,looking southwest.


Figure 45. Second story of east faade, lookingsouthwest.



24/143



Figure 46. South and east facades of clubhouse,looking northwest.


Figure 47. North faade of clubhouse, lookingsoutheast.


Pedestrian Bridge

A concrete pedestrian bridge crosses in an east-west direction over the MUNI Church Streetstreetcar line at 19th Street, connecting the street with the parks pedestrian boulevard (Figure 48).

The bridge features an entablature at the level of the walkway, paneled piers at the ends, and moldingaround the arched opening. An upside-down V-shaped chain-link fence caps the bridge and is boltedinto the sides. Double quarter-turn concrete stairs descend from both sides to concrete platformssouth of the bridge. The platforms are curved at the ends and have built-in concrete benches(Figure 49). Other features around the MUNI stop are concrete curbs that flank the tracks andconcrete retaining walls.

Figure 48. South side of the pedestrian bridge,looking northeast.


Figure 49. West side of original MUNI stop withbuilt-in benches and retaining wall, looking

northwest.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

Playground

The playground occupies an irregular amoeba shaped area at the base of the southern terracing.Until recently, it contained sand, swings, and a climbing structure. The playground is currently underrenovation, and all previous equipment has been removed (Figures 50 and 51).


25/143



Figure 50. Playground area under renovation,looking northwest.


Figure 51. Playground area under renovation,looking northeast.


MUNI Stop Shelters

Small MUNI J-Line stop shelters are located at the east side of the tracks at 18th and Church streetsand 20th and Church streets (Figures 52 and 53). They are composed of metal structures with clearplastic sheathing and barrel roofs.

Figure 52. North MUNI J-Line stop with shelternear 18th and Church streets, looking southwest.


Figure 53. South MUNI J-Line stop shelter near20th and Church streets, looking south.(Source: Page & Turnbull, July 2011)

VIEWS AND VISTAS

The park has an unobstructed northeast-looking view of downtown San Francisco. The best vantage

point can be found at the southwest corner of the park near Church and 20th streets, which is thehighest elevation (Figure 54). The Churrigueresque-style tower of Mission High School, on thenorth side of 18th Street, is prominent in the view shed, while City Halls dome and the FinancialDistrict skyscrapers pierce the more distant skyline. The San Francisco Bay is visible to the east, seenover the South of Market District and Mission Bay, and the hills of the East Bay lay beyond.


26/143



Figure 54. Panoramic view from 20th and Church streets toward downtown San Francisco.(Source: William Mercer McLeod, The Bold Italic. Website accessed on 21 July 2011 from:

http://thebolditalic.com/wmmcleod/stories/1032-fenced-out)


27/143



IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT

MISSION DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY

The following information is largely adapted from the City San Francisco Planning Departments CityWithin a City: Historic Context Statement for San Franciscos Mission District(November 2007). In addition,

a detailed history of the Mission Dolores neighborhood can be found in Carey & Co.s Revised MissionDolores Neighborhood Survey, Volumes 1 and 2(San Francisco, CA, 11 November 2009). It is importantto note that this historic context is a general discussion of the Mission District and Mission Doloresneighborhoods. A specific discussion of Mission Dolores Parks history is presented in Section V.

In 1776, Spanish Franciscan priests Francisco Palou and Pedro Cambon founded Mission SanFrancisco de Asistoday known as Mission Doloresat a location believed to be in the vicinity ofthe present-day chapel. This area was most likely chosen because of its access to fresh water via aspring located near present-day Duboce Park, as well as a creek (later known as Mission Creek)running down from Twin Peaks to Mission Bay roughly along the line of 18th Street.3

Within a decade, the Franciscans had converted over 1,000 Native American neophytes who lived at

the Mission and provided a ready source of labor (Figure 55). This included farming and theconstruction of the present adobe church, completed between 1782 and 1791 as part of a largermission complex. Ranching was the primary economic activity at the mission, however, and by theearly nineteenth century Mission Dolores counted tens of thousands of cattle, sheep, goats andhorses which were pastured on lands that stretched down the San Francisco Peninsula to San Mateo.

Travel to these areas was made possible by El Camino Real, or the royal road, which curved eastfrom Mission Dolores to follow the present-day route of Valencia and San Jose streets.

Figure 55. Ludwig Choris painting of Native Americans dancing at Mission Dolores in 1818.(Source: Bancroft Library, BANC PIC 1963.002:1312--FR).

Following the Mexican War of Independence, the Mexican Congress attempted to encourage furthersettlement of California, as well as reduce the influence of the mission system. This wasaccomplished through a series of legislative decrees which culminated inAn Act for the Secularization ofthe Missions of Californiain 1833. Intended to encourage colonization and make land more accessible to

3 Christopher Richard, quoted in Unraveling the Mystery of Lake Dolores, http://missionlocal.org/2011/02/unraveling-the-mystery-of-lake-dolores/ accessed 27 July 2011.


28/143



the average Californio (as Mexican citizens in California were called), the process of secularizationinvolved the redistribution of the Churchs enormous land holdings through sales to private interests.

During the 1830s and 1840s, Mission Dolores land holdings were parceled out to various parties,including Jose Bernal, Jose Noe, the De Haros and Francisco Guerrero. The Mission Dolores churchcomplex remained in the hands of the Catholic Church, but the area immediately surrounding the

complex was designated as a common area for use as a pueblo settlement. During this period,ranching continued as the dominant economic activity in the region, including the establishment of asmall trading post known as Yerba Buena located along a cove near what is today PortsmouthSquare.

Following the Mexican-American War, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo required Mexico to cedeCalifornia to the United States in 1848. Around the same time, news of the discovery of gold atSutters Mill in the Sierra Nevada reached San Francisco. By 1849, gold seekers from all over the

world were surging into California, and the small settlement at Yerba Buena (by this time renamedSan Francisco) swarmed with activity. The following year California was granted statehood, with SanFrancisco as its most populous city.

In 1850, a plank toll road was constructed along the route of Mission Street from 4th

to 16th

streets,providing access to the small Mission Dolores settlement concentrated near what is today Doloresand 16th streets (Figure 56). Soon afterward, San Francisco annexed the Mission Dolores area,although the lands to the south remained outside the city limits until the Consolidation Act of 1856.During this same period, Mexican-American landowners were forced to prove title to their property,often resulting in costly legal battles that forced them to sell their holdings.

Figure 56. 1850 view of Mission Dolores from Red Rock Hill near present-day Church and 19th Streets.What is today the approximate line of 18th Street is marked by a gully at lower right.

(Source: University of California Calisphere, brk00001116_20a_k).

By the close of the decade, the Mission District remained thinly settled, with much of the area givenover to agriculture. As shown on a US Coast Survey Map produced in 1859, the three principalthoroughfares were El Camino Real, Mission Street and Center Street (todays 16th Street) (Figure57). The majority of buildings were concentrated near 16th and what would become Dolores Street in


29/143



the immediate vicinity of Mission Dolores. Mission Creek is shown running roughly along the line of18th Street, into a tidal arm of Mission Bay near the present-day intersection of Shotwell and 17thstreets. Other prominent features include two horse racing tracks, the Union Race Course and thePioneer Raceway, which had developed in the southern portion of the Mission District when it wasthen outside the city limits.

Figure 57. Detail of the 1859 US Coast Survey map showing the northern portion of theMission District. The Mission Dolores complex is indicated by the large building at upper left.

(Source: David Rumsey Map Collection)

A short time after this map was produced, the land that would become Mission Dolores Park waspurchased by two Jewish congregations for use as a cemetery. (A specific discussion of MissionDolores Parks cemetery history is presented in the Section V.) Concurrently, development of theMission District began to pick up steam owing to a number of key transportation improvementsduring the second half of the nineteenth century. This included the development of a spur railroadline down Valencia Street in 1863, as well as horse car lines running out Mission, Howard (Van Ness

Avenue) and Folsom streets. The ease of access, abundant vacant land and a balmy climate not onlyencouraged settlement, but also facilitated the construction of recreational and amusement facilities,including The Willows, located near 18th and Valencia streets. The most famous resort, however,

was Woodwards Garden, an early amusement park located near 14th and Valencia Streets. Initiallythe private estate of Robert Woodward, the complex grew to include gardens, a picnic ground, an artmuseum, a zoo and other attractions. As more people visited the Mission District, the pace of

residential development quickened, with large parcels subdivided by homestead associations andother developers.

Between 1870 and the turn of the century, the Mission District developed as a densely-populatedstreetcar suburb, primarily inhabited by working-class residents. To the west and south, the Eureka

Valley and Noe Valley neighborhoods also boomed with construction activity, particularly followingthe development of cable car lines from Market Street out Valencia and Castro streets during the1880s, and the 18th and Park No. 33 electric streetcar line, built by the San Francisco & San MateoRailway in 1892. This line ran on 18th Street from Guerrero west to Douglass Street, and served as


30/143



the first phase of a streetcar line designed to provide service between the Mission District andGolden Gate Park.4 During this same period, the rapid growth of San Francisco as a whole led todiscussion of prohibiting further burials in the city limitsincluding the Jewish cemeteries at what istoday Mission Dolores Park.

By the turn of the century, community leaders in the Mission District, as well as other San Francisco

neighborhoods, began issuing calls for improved civic facilities, including schools and parks. Thisresulted in the Board of Education purchasing a plot of land north of 18th Street from the JewishCemetery Association for a new Mission High School, which was completed in 1898. Leading thedemand for a new park was the Mission Park Association, aided by local resident James D. Phelanelected mayor of San Francisco in 1897. Phelan advocated for a host of Progressive Era reforms,including a successful bond measure to develop a park in the Mission District where the Jewishcemeteries (since removed) had been located, as well as to develop parks and boulevards in other SanFrancisco neighborhoods.

The New Mission Park was still in its infancy when a massive earthquake struck San Francisco onApril 18, 1906. In the wake of the tremors, fires erupted in various locations, including the ham &eggs fire in Hayes Valley which soon spread south into the Mission District. Using water from the

golden fireplug located at Church and 20th

streets, as well as other cisterns in the Mission District,firefighters and local residents were able to halt the flames east of the park at 20th Street.

In the wake of the disaster, the new Mission Park served as a refugee camp for displaced residents.The Mission District itself also witnessed dramatic growth as thousands of working-class laborers,predominantly Irish immigrants and their children, relocated from the South of Market area tounburned areas of the Mission. Within a short period, Mission Street developed into a thrivingcommercial strip that included numerous theaters, banks and retail establishments. Those areas ofthe Mission that had burned, including the area immediately adjacent to Mission Park across DoloresStreet, were rebuiltprimarily with two and three-story flats. With this rapid growth came enhancedpolitical power, evidenced by the election of Mission resident, James Rolph, Jr., as Mayor of SanFrancisco in 1911. Rolph held the office until 1930.

The Mission District thrived as a self-contained European-American ethnic community until theclose of World War II. As veterans returned from the war, many moved to the newly developedhousing tracts in the Parkside and Sunset neighborhoods, as well as Marin County and the Peninsula.

As the European-Americans left the Mission District, they were gradually replaced by Salvadoran,Mexican, and Nicaraguan immigrants who were attracted to the areas inexpensive rents andestablished Catholic parishes. From the 1950s through the 1970s, the continued influx of Latinoimmigrants transformed the Mission District into San Franciscos largest predominantly Latinoneighborhood.5 This was symbolized in part by the installation of the statue of Manuel Hidalgo andthe Mexican Liberty Bell in the Mission Dolores Park during the 1960s. In the more recent past, thearea has been identified with Lesbian culture, as well as with gentrification issues related to an influxof high-tech workers drawn to the area for its vibrant cultural and commercial life and its easyfreeway access to the Peninsula.

4 Walter Rice and Emiliano Echeverria, San Franciscos Pioneer Electric Railway San Francisco & San Mateo Railway,http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/sf&sm.html accessed 1 August 2011.5 City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, City Within a City: Historic Context Statement for San Franciscos

Mission District(November 2007).


31/143



SAN FRANCISCO PLAYGROUND AND PARKS HISTORY

To better understand the development of Mission Dolores Park, the following information providesbackground information on the history of urban parks in the United States, as well as in SanFrancisco. It outlines how shifting civic, cultural and financial factors helped shape the developmentof parks, and why the facilities, landscaping and circulation patterns in older parks may demonstrate a

variety of influences that have accreted over time.

Development of Recreational Parks in the United States

Throughout San Franciscos history, the development of parks and recreation grounds in the city hasgenerally echoed national trends in municipal park development. During the nineteenth century,Frederick Law Olmsted and his colleagues designed municipal parks, such as Central Park in New

York and Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, based upon the principles of the European pastoralpicturesque movement in landscape design (Figure 58). These early parks were meant to serve asromantic pleasure grounds and provide a refuge from the bustling cities around them. Theyincluded walking paths, water features, ball fields and other landscape features, but architecture wasdiscouraged as buildings were seen as intrusions into the scenic landscape. Buildings wereaccommodated only where necessary and sited to as not to interfere with the appearance oflandscape design features.6 Pleasure grounds flourished in the United States from about 1850 to 1900

and laid the foundation for many of the countrys most beloved parks.

Figure 58. Golden Gate Park, ca. 1890.(SFPL San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection).

Beginning around the turn of the twentieth century, various progressive reforms led to a decrease inworking hours and increased leisure time for the working class. The nature of public parks alsoshifted, as various reform park organizers promoted the idea of parks as a moral defense againstthe potential for chaos they perceived in this new abundance of free time.7 The playgroundmovement also flourished during this period, as play came to be seen as an activity that moldedchildren into good citizens. New playgrounds were constructed across the country, with manyplaygrounds inserted into existing parks. Organized activities were also promoted in reform parks,including athletics, crafts and dancing programs. As a consequence, facilities such as clubhouses, field

6 Galen Cranz, The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 8, 15.7 Galen Cranz, The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 62.


32/143



houses, swimming pools and locker rooms were constructed to accommodate the growth inrecreational programming.8

By the 1930s, parks were viewed less as idealistic vehicles to social reform, but rather as necessarycomponents of the urban landscape.9 Demand for new recreational facilities continued to expandacross the country, even as the Great Depression stretched municipal budgets. After World War II,

the focus in park design was in repairing existing parks that had deteriorated during the Depressionand war, and to construct new parks in response to the post-war baby boom. In order to insert thesenew parks throughout the city fabric, they tended to be much smaller than previous facilities. Parks

were also frequently sited adjacent to schools as part of school-park plans, with recreation andeducation agencies sharing the costs of land acquisition and construction.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, parks became more function-driven, with specializedfacilities catering to various pursuits. Standardization also became widespread, with equipment,fences, benches, and landscaping all specified for use as part of a basic municipal package. Hardsurfaces were also favored because of the premium placed on multiple-use facilities, as well asreduced maintenance costs. These parks and playgrounds, with their paved surfaces and standardizedinfrastructure, were almost entirely antithetical to the early picturesque pleasure ground prototypes.10

Parks and Playgrounds in San Francisco

San Franciscos earliest public reservations can be traced to the late 1840s, when Union Square andWashington Square both appear as public squares on survey maps. More reservations were added in1855 by the Van Ness Ordinance, which was enacted to resolve land disputes in what would becomethe Western Addition. However, many of San Franciscos earliest parks were also the result of privateland development schemes. These included South Park in 1856, Precita Park in 1859, and Holly Parkin 1860.11 Momentum for more city-owned parks gathered steam in the 1860s during negotiationsover the subdivision of the Outside Lands at the western end of the city. In 1868, the OutsideLands Commission submitted its recommendations to reserve Buena Vista Park, Mountain LakePark (now Lincoln Park), McCoppin Square, and Parkside Square. 12

The largest reservation by far, however, was Golden Gate Park, which emerged as one of the largest

urban parks in the United States, comprised of a 1,017-acre, rectangular tract extending westward 3.5miles from the center of the city to the Pacific Ocean. The design of the park was largely the effort ofsurveyor William Hammond Hall, who proposed a main drive out to the ocean featuring a numberof tree-screened meadows, lawns and artificial lakes. At the time, however, most of the parks acreage

was given over to shifting sand dunes. Landscaping in the park was chiefly the result of the efforts ofmaster gardener John Hays McLaren, who stabilized the blowing sand and planted strategic

windbreaks that allowed for todays lush vegetation. His efforts were so successful that he was namedAssistant Superintendent of Golden Gate Park in 1887, and three years later as Superintendent ofParks, a position he held for more than 50 years until his death in 1943.

As it developed, Golden Gate Park came to embody the pastoral, romantic pleasure ground idealof nineteenth century park design, with nature viewed as a moral tonic for the ills of society. But the

park also reflected an elitist aesthetic. In his authoritative work, San Francisco Parks and Playgrounds,1839-1990, author Randolph Delehanty states that Golden Gate Park was designed after the richmans estate in nineteenth century apotheosis, with drives, overlooks, lawns, gardens, parterres,

8 Ibid., 65, 72, 96.9 Ibid., 101, 109.10 Ibid., 122-123.11 Randolph S. Delehanty, Ph.D., San Francisco Parks and Playgrounds, 1839-1990: The History of a Public Good in One North

American City (Volumes I and II), (Harvard University: 1992), 109-110; 116.12 Ibid: 140-149.


33/143



follies, ponds, gazebos, glasshouses, nurseries, and menageries. It was laid out and developed at thehighest level that the wealthiest men in San Francisco could conceive of in the 1870s.13

The administration of San Franciscos early parks was handled by the Parks Commission, created in1870 and comprised of three persons appointed by the Governor of California. In 1889, the statelegislature authorized the Commission to hire employees, as well as disperse funds from a park tax

that collected six cents for every $100 of assessed valuation. Almost the entirety of the Commissionswork during this period focused on Golden Gate Park, while the other small squares sprinkledthroughout the city received little attention.

During this period, the crowded conditions in many San Francisco neighborhoods led to a call forthe development of childrens playgrounds. Financier William Sharon donated $50,000 for theconstruction of the Childrens Playground in Golden Gate Park (now known as the Koret ChildrensQuarter). The playground was opened in 1887, and is thought to be the nations first publicplayground (Figure 59). During this era, the idea of providing a dedicated space solely for youthrecreation was unique and groundbreaking.14 The playground included a carrousel, swings and otherplayground equipment, as well as a large stone Childrens House.

Figure 59. Golden Gate Park Childrens Playground, 1904.(Source: San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection, AAA-7543).

The widespread development of neighborhood parks in San Francisco can be traced to ProgressiveEra reform ideals that were taking root in San Francisco during the last decade of the nineteenthcentury. In particular, the election of reform candidate James D. Phelan as mayor of San Francisco in1897 transformed the nature of public parks and playgrounds. According to Randolph Delehanty:

One of Phelans first actions as mayor was to take the existing small parks andsquares away from the Department of Streets, Sewers and Squares and put themunder the care of the Park Commission. John McLaren, the superintendant ofGolden Gate Park, was directed to begin landscaping the long-neglected Western

13 Ibid: 167.14 Koret Childrens Quarter, San Francisco Recreation and Parks. Website accessed on 8 February 2010 from:http://www.sfgov.org/site/recpark_page.asp?id=26880


34/143



Addition parks which had been reserved in 1855 but then left virtually unimproved.This was the real beginning of neighborhood parks in San Francisco.15

In 1898, Phelan successfully proposed a new city charter that, among other reforms, allowedthe mayor to appoint members of the Park Commission, as well as to allow the sale of bondsfor park development. Park taxes were also raised one cent. In 1903, San Francisco voters

approved $17.5 million in bonds to secure land for various parks and boulevards, including apark in the Mission; the development of Dolores Street as a boulevard; an extension of thePark-Presidio; and an expansion of Pioneer Park atop Telegraph Hill.16 Together, thesemarked the first major park additions to the city since 1868.

Following his departure from office, Phelan was also instrumental in convincing nationallyrecognized city planner Daniel Hudson Burnham, of Chicago, to design a new master planfor San Francisco in 1905. Among Burnhams many recommendations was the developmentof an extensive park system and parkways totaling 9,600 acres. He also proposedconstruction of twelve new playgrounds.17 Burnham felt that small parks and playgroundsshould provide plenty of shade and pleasant surroundings to those that resort to them, butthey should also include formal plantings that provide a lesson of order and system for

visitors.18

While Burnhams plans were never carried out, they did speak to San Franciscosambitions during the heyday of the City Beautiful movement, which was focused on creatingcivic virtue through the use of beautification projects and monumental architecture.

During this period, San Franciscos park programming firmly embraced the reform parkideal, or what Terrence Young, author ofBuilding San Franciscos Parks 1850 1930, calls therationalist park. According to Young, the beginning of the rationalist period in SanFrancisco was marked by the multiplication of new, special-use areas in Golden Gate Park,each with its own promoters and users.19 This change in attitude included thedevelopment of athletic facilities, specialty gardens, and even museums. However, the earlierromantic notion that parks should provide contemplative, natural landscapes was not whollyrejected. Rather, some naturalistic plantings were deemed necessary because only naturalscenery could provide an escape from the simulation and excess stimulation of an urban

life.20

The reform/rationalist movement was accompanied by the continued development of additionalplaygrounds. In 1898, the California Club established and supported the first public playground onschool property at Bush and Hyde Streets. In 1901, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors gave theBoard of Education $12,000 to lease and equip a playground at 7th and Harrison streets (theSouthside Playground). With the passing of a $741,000 bond issue in 1903, additional lots for theSouthside Playground and a North Beach Playground were purchased by the Board of Supervisors.21Generally speaking, these early neighborhood playgrounds tended to be concentrated in working-class areas, as they were considered an obnoxious land use because of the noise.22 However, it wasalso believed that placing playgrounds in lower-income neighborhoods also helped prevent juvenile

15 Randolph S. Delehanty, Ph.D., San Francisco Parks and Playgrounds, 1839-1990: The History of a Public Good in One NorthAmerican City (Volumes I and II), (Harvard University: 1992), 216.16 Terence G. Young, Building San Franciscos Parks 1850-1930, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 187.17 Randolph S. Delehanty, Ph.D., San Francisco Parks and Playgrounds, 1839-1990: The History of a Public Good in One North

American City (Volumes I and II), (Harvard University: 1992), 250-251.18 Terence G. Young, Building San Franciscos Parks 1850-1930, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 201.19 Ibid: 14320 Ibid: 201.21 San Francisco Playground Commission,Annual Report, 1928-29, and Review of Activities, 17.22 Randolph S. Delehanty, Ph.D., San Francisco Parks and Playgrounds, 1839-1990: The History of a Public Good in One North

American City (Volumes I and II), (Harvard University: 1992), 288.


35/143



delinquency. Elsewhere, parks were generally favored by real estate developers as they raisedproperty values.

The economics of park development was not lost on the Board of Park Commissioners. In anannual report issued in 1910, they acknowledged that the extension of park areas enhances the valueof adjacent taxable land so rapidly that the taxpayer gets an immediate equivalent in public wealth for

every dollar invested in park extension.23 More evident, however, is an understanding of the tensionbetween the romantic notion of parks as reflective pleasure grounds, and the reformist, ProgressiveEra ideals of the park as an amenity for the working class.

The same 1910 report recounts that ancient works such as the Elysian Fields and Hanging Gardensof Babylon bear idealistic or practical testimony to the human vision of verdure and foliage, butthat the park or garden in its modern aspect and under the sway of progressive humanity, has cometo be regarded as a place where the weary, whether weary of head work or hand work, may berefreshed by breathing pure air, gladdened by he sight of flowers and trees, and solaced by the soundof running waters.24 It goes on to state:

The modern idea is of a park at the door of the people, where children may go for

air and playa park accessible to men and women who cannot go to the countryfor rest and recreation. Whatever policy may be adopted by inland towns or cities ofordinary size, the fact is now obvious that San Francisco, one of the leading cities ofthe world, is destined to become densely populated, hence provision must be madefor the workers in every avenue of industrial life. The electric railway, theautomobile, and perhaps the aeroplane of the future, may bring to the congesteddistricts of the metropolis facilities for reaching the mountains and forests of thecountry in quick time and at slight cost. On the cheapest basis imaginable thisprivilege would be denied to people having less than moderate means, therefore theduty of maintaining public parks of vast dimensions and numerous parks andplaygrounds of smaller area, will always demand attention.25

The reform park playground movement had been institutionalized in 1907 when the San Francisco

Playground Commission was established by City Charter. Instrumental in its creation was ReverendDenis O.Crowley, known as the father of the playground movement, who served as theCommissions president until his death in 1928. To acquire sites for playground development, land

was either transferred from the Parks Commission to the Playground Commission, purchased by theBoard of Supervisors for the Playground Commission, or purchased by the Playground Commissionitself.26 A 1924 amendment to the City Charter appropriated five to seven cents on every $100 ofassessed property value for the Playground Commission.

The tenure of Mayor James Sunny Jim Rolph from 1911 to 1931 was particularly fruitful in thedevelopment of additional playgrounds. These included the North Beach swimming pool within theNorth Beach Playground in 1913, followed by the Mission Pool in 1915. The Margaret S. HaywardPlayground was established in 1918, followed by the Funston (now Moscone), Glen Park, Ocean

View, and Julius Kahn playgrounds in 1922. Douglass Playground was formed in 1923, and theFolsom, Portola, and James Lick playgrounds in 1924. The Chinatown, Argonne, and Bay Viewplaygrounds were constructed in 1925, and the Mission, Levi Strauss Sewing Factory, West Portal,and Drama Studio playgrounds were established in 1927. The following year, St. Marys,

23 Hugh M. Burke, ed., Fortieth Annual Report of the Board of Park Commissioners of San Francisco for the Year Ending June 30, 1910 ,(San Francisco: Dickinson & Scott, 1910), 28.24 Ibid: 28.25 Ibid: 28-29.26 San Francisco Playground Commission,Annual Report, 1928-29, and Review of Activities, 17.


36/143



Michelangelo (Russian Hill), and Aptos playgrounds were constructed. In total, the San FranciscoPlayground Commission held jurisdiction over twenty-two playgrounds, fifteen school yards, twopools, and five community buildings by 1928.27

Contrary to the development of new playgrounds, park development during the first two decades ofthe twentieth century was more uneven. In 1909, the city closed the potters field burial ground in the

northwest part of the city, but it was not until 1919 that the Park Commission began converting its200 acres into Lincoln Park. The Palace of Fine Arts, built for the Panama Pacific InternationalExhibition in 1915, was also deeded to the Park Commission following the Exhibition. By the 1920s,however, several major new park facilities were being completed, including the development of the60-acre Fleishhacker Play Field at the junction of the Great Highway and Sloat Boulevard. It includeda 1,000-foot-long heated swimming pool and a bathhouse with 800 dressing rooms, and is now thesite of the San Francisco Zoo (Figure 60).28

Figure 60. Fleishhacker Pool, 1929.(Source: SFPL Historical Photograph Collection, AAA-4845).

In 1922, the Park Commission also leased 170 acres of land for the new Harding Golf Course atLake Merced. By this time, park acquisition was being driven primarily by functional concerns, ratherthan the creation of pastoral pleasure grounds. This same tendency is evident in the installation ofthe Legion of Honor art museum at the summit of Lincoln Park, as well as the development of aswimming area at Aquatic Park.

By far, the most ambitious park development of the era was what came to be known as JohnMcLaren Park, located at the southern end of the city. In 1926, the Board of Supervisors designated550 acres of a former Mexican land grant for a park. However, the process of acquiring the land took

27 Randolph Stephen Delehanty, San Francisco parks and playgrounds, 1839 to 1990: The history of a public good in one NorthAmerican City (Volumes I and II), Harvard University, 1992), 399.28 Randolph Stephen Delehanty, San Francisco parks and playgrounds, 1839 to 1990: The history of a public good in one North

American City (Volumes I and II), Harvard University, 1992), 360.


37/143



decades, and the parks size was eventually reduced to approximately 320 acres. Another importantpark facility, Stern Grove, was donated by Mrs. Sigmund Stern in 1931 as a memorial to her husband.

New uses were frequently introduced into older parks during this time. For example, Golden GatePark witnessed the construction of the Academy of Sciences in 1917, a new de Young Art Museumin 1919, and Kezar Stadium in 1925. New playgrounds were also inserted within existing parks, as

were pools and other recreational facilities such as baseball fields and tennis courts.

While the onset of the Great Depression resulted in severe economic hardships for San Franciscans,government programs to stimulate the economy simultaneously led to an expansion of recreationalfacilities. Between 1930 and 1931, federal funds were allocated to local parks and recreation projects,leading to the construction or expansion of the Funston Annex, Stern Grove, Richmond TennisCourt and Hayes Valley Recreation Center, as well as the Rochambeau (Richmond), Visitacion

Valley, Cabrillo, Potrero Hill, Portola, Ocean View, and Helen Wills playgrounds. All of theseprojects were completed by 1932the same year that the Playground Commission was renamed theRecreation Commission.

Through the Civil Works Administration and State Emergency Relief Administration, some 2,500

people were put to work for the Recreation Commission during the Depression, typically gradingplayground sites in outlying neighborhoods. The extent of the program was such that WilliamGladstone Merchant, a San Francisco architect and frequent collaborator with Bernard Maybeck, wasnamed consulting architect for San Franciscos playground building projects in 1933, serving in thatposition until 1939. By 1940, San Francisco counted fifty-two playgrounds, twenty-seven schoolyards, nine gymnasiums, and thirty-four summer school yards (Figure 61).29

Figure 61. Construction of the Douglas Playground, 1934.(Source: SFPL Historical Photograph Collection, AAE-0021).

During World War II, the Recreation Commission experienced deep cuts in its capital budget, withall land purchases and building projects deferred. Simultaneously, it was forced to deal with providingrecreational opportunities at massive new temporary housing projects being constructed near theshipyards at Hunters Point. Recreation centers were opened at locations including Sunnydale,

Valencia Gardens, Candlestick Cove, Navy Point, Southgate, Harbor Slope, Double Rock and the

29 Ibid.


38/143



Wisconsin, Carolina and Channel War Dwellings.30 By wars end, the citys population had reachedan all-time highjust as federal funds for recreation supplies were being eliminated.

With the post-war Baby Boom in full swing, San Francisco voters approved Proposition 6, a $12million recreation bond measure, in November 1947. The Recreation Commission then embarked ona five year plan to upgrade and expand the citys recreational facilities. For the most part, this effort

focused on developing small neighborhood recreational facilities to serve the citys growingpopulation. When completed, the program represented San Franciscos greatest expansion ofrecreational

Documents

Dolores Park HRER Draft 2011-08-12