It's not like it's the sixteenth chapel. It's just an old building. That doesn't negate the fact that it is a piece of California history. It can be moved. If it wouldn't crumble in the process. I've seen buildings moved that were larger, to be placed in an area where they could be honored. Palo Alto isn't "Cannery Row", it's "Silicon Valley". Choose one or the other. We can't have both. As for the design and the placement of low income housing somewhere that can be seen and not heard, that is the running theme here.

MyFeelz
Where should the building be moved to?

Better than preserving the somewhat dubious building would be to honor the man behind it, Thomas Foon Chew, who by all accounts was a seminal person in the town's development and a bridge between the Chinese- and European-American communities.

How about naming a school or a park after him? This would recognize both his historic contributions and the important role of Chinese Americans in our present community.

It could be moved to the actual Cannery Row. It's only 80 miles away. If they can move London Bridge to Lake Havasu City Arizona, they can move this little building to Monterey.

Web Link

PA Resident is right in their comment above: "Better than preserving the somewhat dubious building would be to honor the man behind it, Thomas Foon Chew..."

The old cannery building is ugly and of no significance. Mr Chew's life and accomplishments ARE of significance and would be better publicized by something like an innovative art installation.

In a similar circumstance on San Antonio Rd between El Camino and Central, the unremarkable old commercial building that once held the pioneering Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory was not preserved. Instead, innovative public art exhibits were built there, including a giant metal transistor sculpture, sidewalk inlay representing transistor and diode design, and a fountain conceptually representing the element silicon. Check them out!

They are going to build a park, name
it after mr. chew. Let the buildings go.

Myfeelz: The sixteenth chapel?

People often confuse beauty with historical significance. An “ugly building” can be historically significant because it is associated with a historically significant person. An “old building” can be historically significant because it is an example of an important architectural style, regardless if you like the style or not. A “somewhat dubious building” can be significant because an important event occurred there or it represents an important era in a city’s history. It seems like the old cannery building qualifies on several accounts. It should be saved.

I agree with the above. Name the park for Mr Chew and put an exhibit about the building’s history in the Palo Alto Museum. Personally I wish for a business to replace Fry’s. This is Silicon Valley. Would it even exist if not for shops carrying what people need when they need it, without a mountain of packaging for every little thing?

So Santa Clara Valley fed the country. The valley was rich in apricot and cherry orchards. There were other crops that thrived in its fertile soil. Then Sacramento Valley dominated after Santa Clara Valley was paved
for Silicon Valley.

Now Silicon Valley has more superfund sites than any other county in the US.

We need more than a few architectural elements of Chew’s successful cannery to be retained. We need to respect our history. Sobrato can be big and support the retention of the cannery’s structure. Thoughtful residents including Holman, Levinsky and Baltay have made the case in support of this important historic building. Sobrato and the city need to cast their nets wide to ensure the Chew cannery is incorporated and kept in this development. Chew was a brilliant man
who succeeded despite racism and should not be forgotten.

We moved to Palo Alto in 1990, not a word or care about any of this history until someone wants to build in the property and then all the people opposed to change suddenly bring up history. Not they they want to admit they are against change, they are doing to preserve history.

Right. They are hypocrites.

/marc

@Marc
People bring up the history because they want to save a historic building. If the building isn’t threatened, of course people don’t make such a fuss about it.
Change can be good or bad. I think destroying this building is a bad change. How is that hypocritical? Palo Alto doesn’t have that many historic sites, and saving them won’t measurably hurt housing production, if that is your worry.

I can picture a group of sixth graders on a field trip standing beneath the 'monitor roof' and asking why it is historic. I sure hope their teacher has a answer because I don't.

Seems to me like a reasonable use of this property, a mix of housing and commercial. We do need more housing in Palo Alto. It's proximity to Cal Train makes it a great place for housing.

I hope a compromise can be reached that notes the history of this building, but allows the project to go forward. Having it sit empty does not serve anyone.

This is insane. If it was still a working cannery I'd say go for preservation but this was an ignored shell that has been gutted and reworked for years. I've been in and out of Fry's for 30+ years and never saw anyone lauding it's historic interior and pointing out it's classic roof till now. Put up an obvious marker and be done with it, it would be more than what's been there for the last 50 years.

The light architectural nod to preserving history could work if it is accompanied by a meaningful exhibit that explains historical context. I agree with comments that the buildings themselves aren't enough to carry the important history forward. Something more is needed to convey history of Mr. Chew's contributions...and to make the future development a more interesting place to visit. A change like this doesn't need to hold up development.

A PUBLIC space that is dedicated to the history of the building, either in the park or at the entrance area to the proposed site could offer exhibits that tell the story with reproduced photographs, video, letters, and (perhaps) a celebratory work of art. The city has money dedicated to creating new public art. Perhaps this would be a good place to spend some of that money.

Area planning has not always been a problem. It is a problem with staff who don't seem to understand how to implement context sensitive design process because they don't appear to have been trained how to do it well. (That is a failure of management.) Open the floor. LISTEN thoughtfully to stakeholders at the front end of the process, so the city will be less likely to get stuck at the back end. Develop plans that reflect what you hear from all stakeholders. Get creative with resources you already have at your disposal, like the public art budget or with some of the old machinery of the factory (if any still exists) which could be repurposed in an exhibit as was done with the old cannery in Monterrey on smaller scale. My problem with this design is it lacks creativity. It's pretty uninteresting...doesn't provide a sense of place. A smart developer could fix that with some creativity and collaborative work with the city.

Can someone please provide a background on what makes this building a historical building? If the people ranting about saving the building and making it fully available to the public actually were the owners of the building, would you all feel the same way? I believe the Sobrato group is trying to reach a compromise with the city, but all the naysayers continue to complain for the sake of complaining. You can't have it all..

"Sistine Chapel" lol That was pretty cute!

Here is a link with a short summary history of Mr. Chew's accomplishments. I hope this is helpful. Web Link

The plan to develop the Fry's site faces pushback? What a surprise. ! This reminds me of how College Terrace neighborhood delayed the development of University Terrace by six years because "Oh My God we are going to be overrun with traffic!", which, of course has not happened. University Terrace, unlike College Terrace, has . . . diversity - both economic and cultural, and College Terrace now wants to be able to use their pool.

The push back on the Fry's site development is coming from Ventura neighborhood. That they may have valid concerns is reasonable. That they think they know better than people who are professional urban planners is absurd and inexcusable.

As for those buildings being historic, are you kidding me? They always have been half a step above a slum.

to Consider your Options... That is a good background on his Alviso cannery but nothing about what make the Palo Alto site historically important. Still searching for the truth.

" That they may have valid concerns is reasonable. That they think they know better than people who are professional urban planners is absurd and inexcusable."

Hardly. These are the same people who tell us that potting in toll lanes will reduce congestion in the same area that's forced to add 1,000,000 new residents.

These are the same people who force rotaries and those blinking traffic lights on us and then -- when thousands of people complain -- hire another consultant to tell us that we're wrong.

These are the same people who put bollards at every intersection on Middlefield and also narrow and widen the road at every other intersection and then wonder why accidents continue toi increase.

These are the same people who conduct traffic surveys at 2AM so they can show there's no traffic so they can sell cities more stuff -- road paint, traffic calming devices, 24-hour blinking traffic lights 10 ft away from people's bedroom windows on quiet residential streets and cul de sacs.

These are the same people who take 8+ years to fix the traffic light timing and then get awarded a multi-million $$$$$ traffic light timing contract from the same city that fired him.

Re College Terrace, go back and read the history of how YELP pushed for the changes there so he could develop company headquarters there but when caught drastically underpaying his employees and contractors took back his promises and money and moved to the East Bay AFTER firing the employee who complained that she could only afford to eat ramen.

So we got stuck with one of the ugliest buildings in town and lost several grocers who replaced JJ&F because people were afraid to use the dangerous underground parking there.

So the vaunted urban planners destroyed a neighborhood resource while enriching themselves with the bonus of giving us another eye sore.

If you look at my original post, I was suggesting a solution that might celebrate and carry Mr. Chew's local story forward while not slowing down the process. Trying to have a substantive, creative, problem-solving discussion here. Please open to hearing each other. Read posts carefully and respond thoughtfully. Let's look for creative solutions that may get this moving in a positive direction.

We do not need more commercial office space for tech workers. As reported by the Mercury News, SF Chronicle, and even over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal, tech companies are breaking leases and giving up their office spaces, and according to experts cited by the journalists, who point to additional factors such as the rising cost of fuel and the lack of affordable housing near jobs, it is possible that this trend may be permanent.

More office space on Park Blvd will harm the community appeal of North Ventura. There already are countless square feet of empty office space there already, including the barely-occupied huge Cloudera Building, empty (or almost empty) buildings up and down Park, and the additional office space already in the works, including a conversion of *residential* to commercial off Park, bringing 60,000 square foot of commercial office space to 123 Sherman--enough for 1000 employees--in the middle of the upscale condo complex on Cal Ave. Sobrato's 500,000 (or more) sq. feet of office will add to this glut and occupy space that could be used to benefit the community rather than to benefit solely one billionaire.

Worst of all: all this new plan was created without *any* reference or regard to the multiple years of work done by the North Ventura Working Group, which proposed several plans--none of which are being valued or considered in this Sobrato windfall--that emphasized housing. It is a disservice to the many individuals who gave their time as unpaid volunteers within a diverse group of stakeholders to work together over so much time to craft workable plans. Why ask for community input if you then throw it away?

This proposed deal with Sobrato is unsound. Rather than serving (or considering) the community, it echoes an earlier giveaway that a former mayor tried to give a billionaire, only to face public shaming. Web Link .

We deserve better.

I recall spending a lot time in Fry's buying all sort of electronic goods. The building was a dump so tear it down. My impression of historical - did Thomas Jefferson write important documents there? Was George Washington sworn in there? Did MLK give a historic speech there? 0 for 3, knock it down and start over.

Not having to concern itself with someone's idea of historical, perhaps Sobrato can build a facility that bring jobs to the local economy and have more flexibility with housing & parking in the plan.

I worked 10 years in that building (until 2015). I have lived 20+ years in Palo Alto. Never heard that this was an historic building, granted it is old, but of no significance. I can tell you there is nothing worth preserving.

Fry's left the site before COVID (2019?) and went bankrupt a while ago (2022?). The lease in the entire building were conditional on the main tenant being there. This site has been dormant for about 4 years. What is Palo Alto waiting to meet its goal of increasing housing capacity?

[Portion removed.]

Now that we've all aired our varied opinions it might be time to hear from Mr. Chew's descendants.

There's a lovely SMALL exhibit on Treasure Island, telling the fascinating history of the island. There could be a small exhibit about the cannery and Thomas Foon Chew in the area being discussed. That would be sufficient -- we don't need to keep those architecturally unimportant buildings. Even a lovely bust of Mr. Chew with an acknowledgement of the history would be lovely and meaningful. See the sculpture of Mr. Nicola Tesla on Birch Street between Sheridan and Grant. Something like that would be great -- we don't need two ugly old buildings.

Time to move forward with removal of the building and building housing (and parking) there. An educational plaque about Mr.,Chew can be appropriately placed.

@Deborah's comment about College Terrace. I don't know how accurate it is to say that CT delayed the development of University Terrace by 6 years, but I do know the comment lacks a critical bit of context. College Terrace residents discovered TCE, a carcinogen, in the groundwater. Stanford was poised and willing to build right over the toxin. No one anywhere should accept that and I am grateful to have neighbors who 1) paid attention and 2) didn't roll over.

Fixing the TCE problem required mitigation, and that takes time. As Palo Alto construction delays go, that one was as valid as can be.

There is still a park planned at frys… right?