Original post made
on Apr 27, 2013
This story contains 58 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
Why doesn't Arrillaga build his complex on the other side of El Camino - at Palo Alto and Quarry.
>Why doesn't Arrillaga build his complex on the other side of El Camino - at Palo Alto and Quarry.
Why doesn't Palo Alto get over its obsession with old buildings, especially those designed by noted architects? The building in question is a watering hole (booze) that is not of the original meaning a hostess house (return and reunion of WWI soldiers with their families). It was moved to its current site from Menlo Park. There is no way that we should be supporting its continuation, if it means that we have to give up playing fields.
People in obsessed with " historic" buildings, especially if a "pseudo famous" name is attached-- hence the Le affair with the hostess house and anything connected with Eichler. You would have thought that the city would have learned something from the slap,on the wrist administered by the voters a decade ago when they rejected the historic home grab. Unfortunately the architect behind that is on the council and she still has her blinders on
We should return McArthur Park (Hostess House) to Menlo Park and let them find a place to put it, after all it was their's in the first place. Let's have Arrillaga pay for the relocation.
>You would have thought that the city would have learned something from the slap,on the wrist administered by the voters a decade ago when they rejected the historic home grab
It was more than a slap on the wrist, it was a grenade thrown into their nest. The people spoke.
It sounds like the Barron Park people are speaking.
Will our city council continue to listen to PAHC, or will they listen to the people?
Not an Issue, your ignorance is embarrassing. The architect was Julia Moran, a very famous architect. Among other buildings she designed the Hearst Castle. Surely you have heard of that?
A quick Google search will enable you to find out what you are missing.
Try google-- just because she designed Hearst castle does not mean that the hostess house is anything special. It is not an original palo alto structure and it has been used as a restaurant-- hardly a fitting use for such a " historic" building. What s ignorant is believing that because it has a certain name (and don't you think Hearst castle s a little overdone?) attached to it makes it historic or special-- but I understand, as a palo alto resident you ave to feel special by elevating structures to " historic" status
Not: I agree with your theory in most respects. For example, the Eichler zealots and the Edgewood Shopping Center was a ridiculous time waster. Thankfully the project is getting done.
However in the case of the Hostess House, there's more than just the architect. The house was built for a specific purpose back in the day --- and there's some honor in that; which should not be so easily dismissed. At least that's my opinion.
Baron Park is not the place. Off the beaten path and not readily seen or accessed by most Palo Altans or the general public. It is a building meant for use by the public (whether its original intent or as a restaurant to day). Hiding it off in a corner of Baron Park is not the answer --- besides, the anti-neighborhood-traffic folks would have a problem with it as well.
"You would have thought that the city would have learned something from the slap,on the wrist administered by the voters a decade ago when they rejected the historic home grab."
Maybe it's time to revote that thing. Maybe attitudes have changed in the past dozen years -- think of gay acceptance for example. Maybe people have seen enough of the alternatives (think 800 High, Elks, JCC, etc.) to vote FOR protecting our city's character. How about it?
Downtown North neighbor says: "Maybe it's time to revoke that thing." The Historic Ordinance which was defeated some ten years ago had the potential to historically preserve all original houses and neighborhoods that were 50 years or more old. In other words your house could not be altered, enlarged or rebuilt. It would be stuck in a time warp.
If that ordinance was enacted today it would put a huge hole in our escalating property values. As it is homes that are now saddled with "single story overlay" are losing value compared with homes in neighborhoods that allow two stories to be built. Realtors must disclose if your house is limited by "single story overlay."