HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF BANCROFT CENTER

HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF Land Use Planning Received June 30, 2017 August 2015

Cover Photograph Bancroft Center, 2558-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley. North façade. View to the southwest.

HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF Prepared for: Mr. Blair Sweeney Landmark Properties 455 Epps Bridge Parkway, Building 100, Suite 201 Athens, Georgia 30606 Prepared by: Michael Hibma, M.A., RPH #603 Angelique Theriot, M.A. LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 www.lsa-assoc.com LSA Project #LMK1501 August 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT... 4 2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT... 4 2.2 CITY OF BERKELEY... 5 3.0 METHODS... 7 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH... 7 3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW... 7 3.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH... 8 3.4 FIELD SURVEY... 8 4.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS... 9 4.1 RECORDS SEARCH... 9 4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW... 10 4.2.1 Online Research... 10 4.2.2 Literature and Map Review... 10 4.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH... 11 4.3.1 Building Permits... 12 Table 1: Building Permit Information... 12 4.3.2 University of California in Berkeley Environmental Design Archives... 12 4.4 FIELD SURVEY... 13 5.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION... 14 5.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT... 14 5.1.1 Berkeley... 14 5.1.2 Southside Neighborhood... 15 5.1.2 Bancroft Center... 16 5.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT... 16 5.2.1 John Hans Ostwald... 16 5.2.2 Modern... 17 5.2.3 Brutalism... 18 5.3 APPLICATION OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA... 19 5.3.1 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria... 19 5.3.2 Landmark Preservation Ordinance Criteria... 20 5.4 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT... 23 6.0 CONCLUSION... 24 Table 2: Resource Status Summary... 24 7.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED... 25 FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location and Project Area... 2 Figure 2: Project Area... 3 TABLES Table 1: Building Permit Information... 12 Table 2: Resource Status Summary... 24 i

APPENDIX Appendix: California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Form Record ii

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of eligibility historical resource evaluation of Bancroft Center, a single-story commercial building built in 1963 at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Alameda County (Figures 1 and 2). LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), conducted background research through literature review and archival research, a field survey, and resource recordation to prepare this evaluation. The evaluation applies the significance criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources and the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance of the Berkeley Municipal Code. This report includes (1) a description of the regulatory context for cultural resources in the project area; (2) a summary of the methods used to prepare the analysis; (3) a description of Bancroft Center and its historical context; and (4) a California Register of Historical Resources eligibility evaluation. Although Bancroft Center is associated with the mid-20 th century commercial development of Berkeley, background research indicates Bancroft Center was not a prominent or important example of this association. The building is also associated with Modern/Brutalist architecture and Berkeleybased architect John Hans Ostwald, but it no longer retains sufficient integrity of his original design. Bancroft Center is neither the last nor best remaining example of Ostwald s work and is a typical example of mid-20 th century commercial development, which is well represented and documented in Berkeley and Alameda County. Based on the results of background research and field survey, the Bancroft Center does not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or for listing as a City of Berkeley Landmark, a Structure of Merit, or as a contributing element to a historic district. As such, it does not appear to be a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (PRC Code 21084.1). P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 1

La Marin Monterey Sierra St Ada St Monterey Carlotta Tulare Rose St Comstock Ct Buena Marin Hearst Alam eda Sonoma North St Rose University Edith St The Alameda Hopkins St Grant St The St Virginia St Marin Berryman St Cedar St Delaware St Allston Way Mariposa Sutter St Henry St Vine St Lincoln St Milvia St Los Angeles Ber keley Sq Shattuck Spr uce St Spruce St Eunice St Oxford St Oxford St Keith Corona Ct C o n t r a Concord Richmond C Pleasant 580 o s t a C o u n t y Hill Walnut Creek ST 24 Berkeley 680 101 ST 580 13 Project Site Carlotta San Francisco ST 1 280 Daly City 101 San Bruno 80 80 Oakland Bonita ST 4 Henry St 780 Martinez Rose St A l a m e d a Alameda C o u n t y Castro San Leandro Valley San 580 Lorenzo Ashland Walnut St Spruce St Arch St Arch St Virginia St Arch St Hearst Greenwood Ter Cedar St Bancroft Way Euclid Wickson Rd S Hall Rd Covert Path La Loma Loma Keeler Glendale Gayley Rd Queens Rd Project Site Shasta Rd Prospect Summit Centennial Dr Course Rd Golf Rd Cyclotron Rd University of California Berkeley Canyon Rd Centennial Dr Tilden Park Golf Course Bancroft Gr izzly Pea k Blvd Pl S Park Dr Panoramic Way Acton St Bancroft Way Sacramento 67th St St Baker St 62nd St California St Ashby Prince St Harmon St Market St Grant St Parker St Ellis St MartinLuther King Jr Way Milvia St Adeline St 60th St Shat tuck Shattuck Woolsey St Alcatraz Poirier St Shattuck Channing Way Fulton St Dw ight Way Ellsworth St Stuart St Raymond St Telegraph Dana St 62nd St ST 13 Bowditch St Regent St Hillegass 60th St Hillegass College Piedmont Ashby Harwood St Southwest Pl Pine Path Garber St Claremont S Crossways Chabot Rd Broadway Slater Ln Tu nel Rd plands UThe Chabot Rd ST 24 Eustice Stephens Way Vicente Pl ST13 Contra Costa Rd FIGURE 1 0 1000 2000 FEET SOURCE: ESRI StreetMap North America (2012). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (5/4/2015) 2456-2580 Bancroft Way Berkeley, Alameda County, California Regional Location

Project Site LEGEND Project Site FIGURE 2 0 1000 2000 FEET SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo Quads - Oakland West, Calif. (1980), Oakland East, Calif. (1980), Richmond, Calif. (1980), and Briones Valley, Calif. (1968). I:\LMK1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 2_Project Site.mxd (5/12/2015) 2456-2580 Bancroft Way Berkeley, Alameda County, California Project Site

2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT 2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Discretionary project approvals must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The term CEQA uses for significant cultural resources is historical resource, which is defined as any resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; Listed in a local register of historical resources; Identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or Determined to be an historical resource by a project's lead agency. An historical resource consists of Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California... Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (CCR Title 14(3) 15064.5(a) (3)). For a cultural resource to qualify for listing in the CRHR it must be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California s history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2: Associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to being significant under one or more criteria, a resource must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as an historical resource and retain integrity, which is defined as the ability of a resource to convey the reasons for its significance (CCR Title 14 4852(c)). Generally, a cultural resource must be 50 years old or older to qualify for the CRHR. 1 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service 1997:2) states that the quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity. There are seven aspects of integrity to consider when evaluating a cultural resource: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association: 1 Generally, for a cultural resource to be considered for listing in the CRHR and a historical resource for purposes of CEQA it must be at least 50 years old or enough time must have passed for there to be a scholarly perspective on the resource and the reasons for its potential significance. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 4

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historical events and persons. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. Physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including topographic features, vegetation, paths or fences, or relationships between buildings and other features or open space. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of the artisan's labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historical character. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects (National Park Service 1997:44). 2.2 CITY OF BERKELEY Chapter 3.24 of the Berkeley Municipal Code contains the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO). Enacted by the Berkeley City Council in 1974, the LPO authorized the creation of a Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to implement the ordinance, which sought to protect those sites, structures, or areas that are: (1) reminders of past eras, events, and persons important to local, state, or national history; (2) significant examples of architectural styles of the past; or (3) landmarks in the history of architecture, or unique or irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods. In addition, the LPO seeks to: (1) develop and maintain appropriate architectural settings for identified resources; (2) enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, and increase economic benefits to the City; (3) preserve the City s various architectural styles; and (4) encourage an understanding of the living heritage of the City s past, as expressed by its historically significant built environment features. The LPC is authorized to designate Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts. In addition to its designation duties, the LPC reviews applications for the alteration or demolition of Landmarks and Structures of Merit, as well as new construction in Historic Districts. Designation proposals may originate from private individuals, the LPC, the Planning Commission, the Civic Arts Commission, or the City Council. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 5

In considering designation applications for Landmarks and Historic Districts, the LPC uses the following criteria established by the LPO section 3.24.110: 1. Architectural Merit: a) A property is the first, last, only, or most significant architectural property of its type in the region; b) A property is the prototype of, or outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement, or construction, or is an example of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer, or master builder; or c) A property is an architectural example worth preserving for the exceptional values it adds as part of the neighborhood fabric. 2. Cultural Value: A structure, site, or area associated with the movement or evolution of religious, cultural, governmental, social, and economic development of the City. 3. Educational Value: A structure worth preserving for its usefulness as an educational force. 4. Historic Value: A structure that represents the preservation and enhancement of structures, sites, and areas that embody and express the history of Berkeley/Alameda County/California/United States. History may be social, cultural, economic, political, religious, or military. 5. Historic Property: Any property listed in the National Register of Historic Places. In considering applications for Structure of Merit designation, the LPC uses the following criteria: 1. General Criteria: A structure shall be judged on its architectural merit and/or cultural, educational, or historic interest or value. If a structure does not meet Landmark criteria, it may be designated a Structure of Merit if it is worthy of preservation as part of a neighborhood, a block or street frontage, or as part of a group of buildings that includes Landmarks. 2. Specific Criteria a) The age of the structure is contemporary with: (1) a Landmark within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; or (2) a historic period or event of significance to Berkeley, or to the structure s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; b) The structure is comparable in size, scale, style, materials, or design with a Landmark structure within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings; c) The structure is a good architectural design example; d) The structure has historical significance to Berkeley and/or to the structure s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 6

3.0 METHODS A records search, literature review, archival research, field survey, and eligibility evaluation were conducted for this study. Each task is described below. 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH At the request of LSA, staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in Rohnert Park conducted a records search (File No. 14-1509) on May 6, 2015, for the project area and a one-block radius to identify built environment cultural resources. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resource records and reports for Alameda County. As part of the records search, LSA also reviewed the following local and state inventories for cultural resources in and adjacent to the project area: City of Berkeley Landmarks Designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association 2015); California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976); Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988); California Points of Historical Interest (California Office of Historic Preservation 1992); California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation 1996); and Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (California Office of Historic Preservation April 5, 2012). The directory includes NRHP, CRHR listings, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. 3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW LSA reviewed the following publications, maps, and websites for historical information about the project area, and its vicinity: Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California (American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco Section 1977); California Place Names (Gudde 1998); Historic Spots in California (Hoover et al. 1990); California 1850: A Snapshot in Time (Marschner 2000); Historical Atlas of California (Hayes 2007); P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 7

San Francisco Quadrangle, 60-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1892, 1939); San Francisco, Calif., 15-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1895, 1899, 1915, 1942, 1946, 1948); Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1949, 1959, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1992, 1993); Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. Maps for Berkeley, Alameda County, California (1894, 1911, 1929, 1950); An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area (Cerny 2007); A Living Legacy: Historic Architecture of the East Bay (Wilson 1987); Online Archive of California at http://www.oac.cdlib.org; and Calisphere at http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu. 3.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH LSA architectural historian Michael Hibma conducted archival research on May 7, 2015, at the offices of the City of Berkeley Department of Planning & Development, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, and the Berkeley Historical Society. The archival research included an examination of local histories, maps, images, government records, and previous survey evaluation forms for historical information. Information identified included former owners, past land use activity, and the architectural context of the neighborhood. LSA architectural historian Angelique Theriot conducted supplemental archival research on August 7, 2015, at the Berkeley Historical Society. The archival research included a review of historical resources related to the University of California in Berkeley campus and the Southside neighborhood. Materials reviewed included historical photos taken of the Southside neighborhood and occupancy information identified in city directories from 1964 through 1984. Mr. Hibma and Ms. Theriot conducted supplemental archival research on July 29, 2015, at the University of California, Berkeley s Regatta Center in Richmond to review architectural plans, drawings, color slides, and other information related to the work of John Hans Ostwald. 3.4 FIELD SURVEY LSA architectural historian Michael Hibma conducted a field survey of the project area and a visual review of the surrounding neighborhood on May 8, 2015. The exterior of the Bancroft Center was reviewed and photographed, as was the architectural context of the surrounding neighborhood. LSA Architectural Historian Angelique Theriot conducted a supplemental field survey of the project area and a visual review of the surrounding area on August 7, 2015. The exterior of the Bancroft Center, the streetscape, and the block composition were closely reviewed and photographed. The interiors of the individual commercial spaces, enclosed courtyard, and underground parking garage were reviewed to identify alterations and present conditions. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 8

4.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 4.1 RECORDS SEARCH No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area. One City Landmark, the Fred Turner Building, is west of, and adjacent to, the project area; a Structure of Merit property is 200 feet west of the project area; and a second City Landmark is located approximately 450 feet southwest of the project area. In addition, there are eight other City Landmarks within 500 feet of the project area. Collectively, these commercial and residential properties contribute to the historic character of the Downtown area, and all are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The NWIC records search and literature review identified one recorded built environment resource adjacent to the project area: 2546-2554 Bancroft Way, Fred Turner Building. The Fred Turner Building, built in 1940, was designed by the prominent architect Julia Morgan. The Fred Turner Building (State of California designation P-01-005148) is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and was designated City Landmark #49 on December 21, 1981. The NWIC records search and literature review identified one built environment resource within one block of the project area: 2500 Durant nue, Cambridge Apartments. The Cambridge Apartments, built in 1914, are located at the southeast corner of the Durant nue and Telegraph nue intersection. It was designed by Walter H. Radcliffe, Jr., a well-known Berkeley-based architect. The Cambridge Apartments (State of California designation P-01-010659) was designated Berkeley City Landmark #301 on September 6, 2007. A review of local and state historical resource inventories and architectural guidebooks identified 10 City Landmarks within one block of the project area: College Women s Club at 2680 Bancroft Way (City Landmark #33, built 1928); Site of Carrington House at 2323 Bowditch Street (City Landmark #54, built 1893); Davis House at 2547 Channing Way (City Landmark #79, built 1899); Durant Hotel at 2600 Durant nue (City Landmark #180, built 1928); Cornelius Beach Bradley House at 2639 Durant nue (City Landmark #201, built 1897); The Brasfield at 2520 Durant nue (City Landmark #219, built 1911); Ellen Blood House at 2526 Durant nue (Structure of Merit, City Landmark #220, built 1891); The Albra at 2532 Durant nue (City Landmark #221, built 1921); Robcliff Apartment House at 2515 Channing Way (City Landmark #222, built 1921); and Epworth Hall at 2521 Channing Way (City Landmark #223, built 1927). P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 9

4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW LSA reviewed online archives to identify scanned photographs and written materials. 4.2.1 Online Research No information pertinent to the Bancroft Center or John Hand Ostwald was identified in the literature review. 4.2.2 Literature and Map Review No buildings or structures are depicted in the project area on the plat for Rancho San Antonio (General Land Office 1868). Sparse development is depicted in the area on the San Francisco, Calif., 15-minute quadrangle (USGS 1895, 1899). Subsequent versions of the same quadrangle do not depict individual buildings, suggesting a high density of development (USGS 1942, 1946, 1948). The Oakland West, Calif., 7.5-minute quadrangle depict the project area in a shaded pink color also indicating a high density of development in the area (USGS 1949, 1959, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1992, 1993). According to an analysis of Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of Berkeley, the following chronological summary documents the development of the built environment on City Block 5328 from 1894 through 1911. In 1894, the project area is depicted as a vacant lot in an undeveloped portion of the city (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1894). By 1911, the project area was depicted containing four single-family residences on two separate parcels. One parcel in the project area contained two buildings. One is identified as 2532 Bancroft Way and is depicted as a one-story building with a raised basement. This building is sited at the rear of the parcel. The other building is identified as 2534 Bancroft Way and is depicted as a twostory building with a raised basement and a rear addition. This building is sited at the front of the parcel. The second of two parcels in the project area contained two buildings. One is identified as 2536 Bancroft Way. This building is depicted as a two-story with a raised basement. The building has a north-facing bay window. This building was sited near the front of the parcel. The other building is identified as T 2536 ½ Bancroft Way. This building is depicted as a two-story dwelling sited at the rear of the parcel. The area experienced an overall shift from single-family housing to apartments to accommodate the growing student population. The 3-story El Granada apartment complex is visible at the intersection of Bancroft Way and Telegraph nue, and includes 46 units over first-floor commercial tenants. The streetscape of Durant Street included a 24-unit apartment building, as well as a fraternity house, in keeping with development related to the growth of the University of California student population (Sanborn- Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1911). The following chronological summary documents the development of the built environment on City Block 5238 in 1929: P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 10

A single-family dwelling identified at 2532 Bancroft Way in 1911 was converted to a boarding house and readdressed as 2562 Bancroft Way. The single-family dwelling identified at 2534 Bancroft Way in 1911 was also converted to a boarding house and readdressed as 2570 Bancroft Way. The building included a large garage addition on its east side. The single-family dwelling identified at 2536 Bancroft Way in 1911, had a 1-story storefront addition added and readdressed as 2576 Bancroft Way. The building identified at 2536 ½ Bancroft Way in 1911 was reconfigured into two units and readdressed as 2538 Bancroft Way. The project area was bordered to the east by the Masonic Club of the University of California, a 1-story building with a mezzanine and basement. The area was predominantly commercial in use, as many new shops replaced apartment buildings (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1929). The following chronological summary documents the development of the built environment on City Block 5238 in 1950: The project area was cleared of all previous residential and commercial buildings depicted in 1911 and 1929 and subsequently depicted containing two medical office buildings. The medical office building located at 2560-70 Bancroft Way is depicted as a square, 2-story building. The medical office building located at 2580 Bancroft Way is depicted as a rectangular 1-story building. The Masonic Club of the University of California is depicted east of the project area. The Fred Turner Building, which was designed by Julia Morgan as a small, boutique-style commercial building. The rectangular 1-story building has a flat, copper-clad roof behind a raised parapet. The building contained four separate spaces organized around a central courtyard. The fraternity house at 2547 Durant Street is depicted. The area remained predominantly commercial in nature, with 31 commercial spaces present on City Block 5238. This development pattern reflected the post-war growth of the University of California student body (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1950). 4.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH A review of the Berkeley historical resource inventories and local and regional architectural guidebooks indicates that the Bancroft Center is not listed as a City Landmark, a Structure of Merit, a contributor to a district, or otherwise regarded for its architectural qualities (BAHA 1987, Bohn 1971; Cerny 2001, 2007; City of Berkeley 2004, 2010; Wilson 1987; Woodbridge 1992, 2005). P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 11

4.3.1 Building Permits A review of building permit records for Bancroft Center produced several examples of permitted events in the building s history. Scanned documents on microfiche included a copy of the original architectural plans of Bancroft Center as designed by John Hand Ostwald. The plans, dated October 21, 1963, proposed to demolish three buildings and build the extant single-story, multi-unit commercial retail building with underground parking in this location. The original building permit was not located and is presumed lost or misplaced. A summary of information about the building s construction and alterations is presented below. Due to the volume of the permits, the table omits minor electrical and plumbing repairs. Table 1: Building Permit Information Date Permit Number Description May 4, 1965 Illegible Extend front add a show window (2576 Bancroft Way). May 6, 1968 Illegible Expansion of Magnin store into adjacent restaurant in Fred Turner Building. March 7, 1983 324839395 Sign permit (Häagen-Dazs 2564 Bancroft Way). August 19, 1983 0819832936 Install new roof top air conditioning units (2560 Bancroft Way) October 27, 1983 1109834990 Remodel retail store into bakery (2562 Bancroft Way). March 27, 1984 0430848584 Install skylight and enclose open courtyard (2562-2564 Bancroft Way). November 19, 1984 1119843943 Sign permit. August 16, 1985 0723859974 ADA access improvements (add concrete steps, ramps, and railings in front of main façade). April 4, 1985 0624859170 Interior remodel. June 11, 1986 062387015 Sign permit (2570 Bancroft Way). April 30, 1987 0601872922 Unspecified tenant improvements. 4.3.2 University of California in Berkeley Environmental Design Archives Research at the Regatta Center of the University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives in Richmond included an analysis of original building plans of four of Ostwald s projects from the 1960s, and color projector slides of 32 other residential projects by Ostwald. The slides included residential building for various clients throughout California. These slides depict numerous residential buildings designed in a minimalist modern style, and incorporated open split-level floor plans with terraced outdoor spaces and courtyards. Both interiors and exteriors featured natural wood treatments that were both cosmetic and structural. These designs highlight Ostwald s preference for P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 12

steep lots, as they provided him with the opportunity to design in a way that complimented the topography. Three plans were of residential, commercial, and civic projects in Berkeley, and one residential project in the Lake Tahoe area. The selected plans were a representative sample of the varied scope of his work. All displayed a variety of styles, with their unifying characteristic being simplicity of design. These projects all showed a preference for natural wood finishes, exposed brick, and abundant light. Two of the projects were renovations or additions, consistent with the bulk of Ostwald s work throughout the 1960s. The Goodman Office Building at 1535 Shattuck nue was designed by Ostwald in 1966. The design included a water feature and a landscaped courtyard for visitors, two features that were also incorporated in to the original design of the Bancroft Center. The plans also included a sod roof, which, incidentally, shares a similarity with Ostwald s plans for an addition to the Main Branch Annex of the Berkeley Public Library. The Goodman Office Building is extant; however, the water feature, signage, and courtyard have been removed, as they have also been removed at the Bancroft Center. These changes likely speak to the difficulty of maintaining such features in small commercial spaces over time. 4.4 FIELD SURVEY The field survey of the project area identified the Bancroft Center, a single-story, rectangular commercial building located at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way. The Bancroft Center was designed and constructed in 1963 as a single-story, multi-unit commercial building covered with very-low pitched or a flat roof. It is a very modest example of Modern/Brutalist style architecture. The walls are clad in sections of exposed aggregate concrete that are divided by paired, vertical, smooth-textured concrete pilasters. Portions of the main, street-facing façade are clad in textured stucco or screen walls of circular glass block. Building entrances are covered by large, full-length projecting boxed eaves and accessed from the public sidewalk by three separate sets of short concrete steps. The individual commercial spaces are irregularly spaced and generally flanked by decorative concrete and glass screens or by full-height plate glass windows. Entrance doors consist of wood double doors with double-paned glass set in arched frames. Alterations to the building included the addition of a skylight to cover the open central courtyard and the filling in of the water feature (Reay 1975:47). Other alterations include new windows and siding at the far left side of the main street facing façade (current location of Avant-Card). The original Joseph Magnin signage was removed sometime in the 1980s. The concrete steps were reconfigured and metal railings added to meet disability access requirements. The original BANCROFT CENTER letter script affixed to the concrete at the right of the courtyard steps was subsequently removed (Reay 1975:47). The interior spaces have also been remodeled as necessary to accommodate different businesses. Aerial photos indicate that the five original square bubble skylights, as drawn on the original plans, were subsequently filled in or replaced with smaller flat units by 1987 (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1968, 1980, 1987). The original plaster-faced fencing that enclosed roof-top climate control equipment was removed, and flat-toped metal panels were installed. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 13

5.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION This section presents the historical and architectural context of the project area and evaluates the eligibility of the Bancroft Center at 2558-2580 Bancroft nue under CRHR and LPO significance criteria. 5.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT This section describes the historical context of the project area, including property-specific development, as well as the architectural context of the Modern/Brutalist style. 5.1.1 Berkeley The project area is entirely within the Rancho San Antonio land grant, which was granted to Luis Maria Peralta on August 3, 1820, for his service to the Spanish government. His 44,800-acre rancho included what are now the cities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Piedmont, and a part of San Leandro. Peralta s land grant was confirmed after Mexico s independence from Spain in 1822, and his title was honored when California entered the Union by treaty in 1848. In 1842, Peralta s son, José Domingo, received the northern portion of the rancho lands, which includes the modern communities of Albany, El Cerrito, and Berkeley (Cerny 2001:276). In 1852, Francis Kittredge Shattuck, George Blake, James Leonard, and William Hillegrass purchased one-square mile of land bounded by College nue, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Addison Street, and Russell Street. The main thoroughfare would later become Shattuck nue (Cerny 2001:276), and the area would become the core of early Berkeley s commercial, residential and civic development. The arrival of the University of California in 1873 from Oakland guaranteed a future for Berkeley s early residents and real estate speculators (Office of Historic Preservation 1996:1). At the time of the University s arrival, Berkeley hardly existed; a restaurant and a small hotel [comprised] the downtown area. There were neither sidewalks nor a practicing physician. Students and faculty continued to live in Oakland commuting via horse-drawn trolley until homes and boarding houses could be built (Starr 1973:147-148). In 1876, Shattuck purchased a spur line of the Southern Pacific Railroad originating in Oakland and running north to Berkeley along Adeline Street, then along Shattuck nue to its terminus at what would become Shattuck Square. Shattuck nue provided the necessary width for wagon and rail transportation into the heart of the fledgling community. Commercial space along the avenue came at a premium. University nue was the main east/west transportation arterial connecting the shoreline commercial activity and the hillside residential areas with the university campus and downtown. This event and the burgeoning importance of Shattuck and University avenues were was the catalyst for downtown development. Two years later, Berkeley was incorporated (Cohen 2008). P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 14

5.1.2 Southside Neighborhood The history of the Southside neighborhood is closely associated with the establishment of a university in what would become Berkeley. In the late 1850s, land speculators and civic boosters enticed the College of California to move north from Oakland to a more natural area along Strawberry Creek, a location that was still close to Oakland and, via ferry service, San Francisco. In response to the move being hindered by a lack of funds, George Blake agreed to sell the College land south of the proposed location so that the subsequent subdivision and resale could finance the relocation. To do this, the trustees created the College Homestead Tract Association to facilitate sales (Wollenberg 2002). This development created the first residential neighborhood in Berkeley (Wilson 1987:136-140). The College Homestead Tract Association marketed the parcels to prosperous citizens interested in living in a small college town (Wood 1883:782). The trustees hired famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted to plan the development, but his ideas were deemed unsuitable. While Olmsted envisioned a network of landscaped roads and tree-lined lanes following topographic contours, the trustees favored a traditional grid pattern, perhaps in an effort to maximize parcel sales. In a move designed to appeal to educated buyers, the north-south streets were named alphabetically after prominent scientists such as Audubon (now College nue), Bowditch, Choate (now Telegraph nue), Dana, Ellsworth, Fulton, and Guyot (now Shattuck nue). East-west streets were named after authors, such as Allston, Bancroft, Channing, and Dwight. Bancroft Way was named after historian George Bancroft who also served as the American Ambassador to Great Britain and later as Secretary of the Navy under President James Polk (Aronivici 2004:2). As the Homestead Tract gradually developed as a residential area during the 1880s and 1890s, commercial development began along Shattuck nue, Telegraph nue, and Bancroft Way. Recognizing an opportunity, the Central Pacific Railway built a branch line along Shattuck nue to provide a convenient route from east and west Berkeley to Oakland and San Francisco. A horse car line and later an electric streetcar station stop, known as Dwight Station was at the southeast corner of the intersection of Shattuck nue and Dwight Way. The railroad facilitated the development of the Southside neighborhood fostered prosperous commercial areas nearby (HABS 1991:7-8). In 1902, the route was purchased by the Oakland Consolidated Street Railway and later became part of the Key System, which was a regional streetcar system in Oakland and Berkeley. Streetcar service ended in November 1948, and the area began to change due to the end of the Key System and the post- World War II rise of the automobile (Sappers 2007:60-65, 174-177). By 1950, the Sanborn map of the project area shows an increasing concentration of residential and commercial activity on Bancroft Way (Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Ltd., 1950). In the aftermath of World War II and through the 1970s, the student population at the Berkeley campus grew consistently, resulting in a steady demand for student housing. In response, new units were built in the Southside neighborhood. Also during this period, many established families and older residents moved out of the area and to the Berkeley/Oakland hills or outlying suburbs. This shift led to a significant change in the nature of the older single-family enclaves in the Southside neighborhood. Some single-family homes were converted to apartment or flats, and others were razed to accommodate larger multi-story shoebox apartment buildings (Hibma 2013). Pressure from the ever-growing University resulted in constant change, as additional living space was built for students and workers in support industries. Today, the Homestead Area is known locally as the Southside and is mostly residential in nature, with university students forming the bulk of the population. P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 15

5.1.2 Bancroft Center Bancroft Center is a single-story commercial building built in 1963 at 2558-2580 Bancroft Way. The building is located near the University of California s Berkeley campus in the city s Southside neighborhood. The building was designed around a central open courtyard space and adjoining water feature, but both elements have been significantly altered or removed. At its opening, the building s flagship store was Joseph Magnin, a high-end clothier who remained in Bancroft Center until 1983. Other tenants included the Clark Company from 1967 to 1984, and Bruce Men s and Boys Clothing from 1964 until 1969. The shops currently serve the original purpose as commercial retail and service space catering primarily to students and faculty. However, the building has sustained alterations and renovations that have reduced its historical and architectural value. The area around the Bancroft Center continues to develop commercially in response to a growing university student body. 5.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT 5.2.1 John Hans Ostwald A review of published materials about notable architects on the Bay Area and California provided minimal information about the work of John Hans Ostwald. Although records indicate that he designed numerous buildings throughout the in 1960s and 1970s, none have been documented in architectural literature. Records also indicate that the bulk of his work included residences and structural alterations. John Hans Ostwald was born in Berlin, Germany, to a Jewish family in 1913. After the end of World War I, his family relocated to the suburb of Dahlem, where the family prospered in the banking industry. When Ostwald was 12 years old, the family relocated to Vienna, where his father took a position as senior partner of a private bank. The family was typical of those living in 1930s Vienna and participated in an active social scene. Ostwald, along with his siblings and parents, received musical and artistic instruction. This experience later informed his architectural focus on familyoriented open living spaces in his residential designs (Reay 1975: 11). Ostwald enrolled in the University of Vienna in 1931, where he studied law and apprenticed as a banker. In 1932, he enrolled at the London School of Economics. Ostwald completed his law degree at the Institute of Technology in Vienna in 1934, and enrolled in the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich to pursue an architecture degree in the same year. He completed this program in 1938 and finished his doctorate in Technical Sciences a year later. Following graduation he worked in Zurich for modern architect Werner Moser. However, the changing social, political, and economic conditions in Austria following the Anschluss, when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in March 1938, compelled him to consider a new career path (Reay 1975:12). As conditions deteriorated in central Europe in the late 1930s, Ostwald and his wife Rosemarie immigrated to California, where they settled first in San Francisco and later in Berkeley. Shortly after their arrival, Ostwald began working for several Bay Area firms including Richard Neutra, Reiners & Garren and Anshen & Allen. John began his architectural practice as the influence of modern architecture as expressed by Le Corbusier and Ernö Goldfinger was becoming popular in the Bay Area (Reay 1975:12). Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Ostwald s work remained largely residential, with few commercial commissions. He partnered with architect Frederick L. Confer from 1947 to 1954. His early works were influenced locally by Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck, which is P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 16

evident in his early residential designs. His use of natural wood finishes, exposed brick, and abundant light is in keeping with the notable features of the Second Bay Tradition, a popular regional aesthetic following World War II. Ostwald himself, however, rejected the idea of adhering to any particular style. Rosemarie held a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Zurich and began working at the University of California, San Francisco s College of Pharmacy. In 1946, she joined the Bio- Organic Group of the Radiation Laboratory (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) on the Berkeley campus. In 1957 she accepted a professorship in the Department of Nutritional Sciences. Following his return to individual practice, Ostwald s focus shifted from residential construction to alterations and additions to private and public buildings. Ostwald s design portfolio included more civic buildings after 1955. By the time of his death in 1973, Ostwald designed alterations for over 100 existing buildings throughout California (Reay 1975:14). These alterations included additions and interior remodels of commercial properties such as the Andre Godet Shop in Berkeley and the Jack Hughes Shop in Orinda. Ostwald also designed additions to the Berkeley City Hall annex in 1963 and the Main Branch of the Berkeley Public Library two years later. He also designed a new sanctuary for the Julia Morgan-designed St. John s Presbyterian Church at 2640 College nue in Berkeley. St. John s Presbyterian Church is a Berkeley Landmark, as well as listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Many of Ostwald s additions were subsequently removed as part of successive modernizations (UC Berkeley Index 2015:7). In the 1960s and 1970s, Ostwald s style diversified. His designs for commercial and civic buildings range in style and scale as he also began to integrate interactive components into his designs, such as public artwork and water features. During the 1960s, he served on the various Berkeley municipal committees and organizations, such as the Design Review Committee, Civic Art Commission, Civic Art Foundation, and the School Master Plan Committee. As a member of the Code Review Committee, he developed Berkeley s privacy ordinance codes. From 1967-1968 he was a guest lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley College of Environmental Design (Reay 1975:16). In 1971, he won election to the American Institute of Architect s College of Fellows, and the Oakland Tribune recognized his community service work in the East Bay (Oakland Tribune 1971). Soon afterward, Ostwald accepted a visiting professorship position with at Haile Selassie University in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where he developed a curriculum for architecture students. He also designed residences while in Ethiopia, and drafted plans for the renovation of the university s library. Ostwald died on May 24, 1973. Several of his designs were constructed posthumously. His legacy is complicated to define, given his rejection of adherence to style and desire in favor of building in a way that suited his clients particular needs (Reay 1975:16). His body of work indicates that he was a well-regarded architect with a prolific portfolio amassed during his career. 5.2.2 Modern The Modern style has its roots in the rise of industrial manufacturing during the late-19 th century. Architects who favored this style focused on open floor plans and challenged traditional concepts of building layouts and massing. They sought to move away from decorative elements that referenced historical designs and motifs and toward designs that emphasized a building s function. Modern style buildings also represent a large range of designs, from simple functional ranch residences to highconcept public facilities. During the early decades of the 20 th century, architects gradually embraced the machine age, prompting a turn toward a sleeker, more refined appearance. While some architects P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 17

created eclectic interpretations of traditional design and forms, other architects disregarded such influences as archaic. Modern buildings also encompass several subtypes, including Prairie, Craftsman, and Brutalist designs. The advent of the Modern style was dependent on advances in building material technology, as the availability of steel and concrete encouraged 20 th century architects to move away from traditional forms by removing their dependence on walls as loadbearing necessities. Following the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s, designers stripped away Art Deco s rich materials and jazzy ornamentation to emphasize a sense of smooth motion conveyed by clean lines. Known as Streamlining, this design concept reflected the hope held by many that science and technology would rejuvenate the economy. The streamlining design movement of the 1930s helped establish the modern, post-world War II American aesthetic, which abandoned all historical reference in architecture. Bricks and stone were replaced with sheets of glass or metal. This found widespread favor as reflective of post-war American society and spread to all major cities and outlying areas (Gelernter 1999:262-263). Modern-styled buildings were economical to build, with a simple design without elaborate ornamentation that was easily replicated, a quality that appealed to businesses (Wiseman 2000:149). The general character-defining features of the Modern style are: Square or rectangular footprint; Flat roof; Subdued color schemes; Minimal amount of façade ornamentation to draw attention of passersby to the interior; Simple cubic "extruded rectangle" massing; Windows running in broken horizontal rows forming a grid; Façade angles at 90 degrees; and Building materials of steel, formed concrete, chrome, or plated surfaces (Gelernter 1999:248-249; McAlester and McAlester 2003:464-467). 5.2.3 Brutalism By the 1960s, architects pushed the boundaries of Modernism even further. They designed unconventional shapes to combine and create new building forms and experimented with massing once again, producing designs that are both vaulted and compact. A subtype that gained prevalence in the 1960s is Brutalism, which used concrete as the most common building material and emphasizes the sculptural qualities of that material shorn of all ornamentation. Brutalism is from the French term for concrete, béton brut, which was often used by Le Corbusier to describe the appearance of the material. Brutalism is characterized by a focus on the visibility of building material, and typically displays the building materials themselves in an unadorned and unfinished fashion. Windows and entrances are unornamented, as well, and typically exist as voids in a solid concrete plane created by recessing windows into façades. An overall starkness of appearance was meant to evoke solemnity through its sheer size and simplicity. The chosen building materials were intended to appear durable and monolithic. The style gained popularity in design of institutional P:\LMK1501\Cultural\BANCROFT_CENTER\Report\LSA_Bancroft_Center_HRE.doc (08/19/15) 18