Originally published in the High Holy Days 5782 issue of the Galim (Sept. 2021)
EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO, the L.A. City Council declared our sanctuary building to be one of the city’s historic-cultural monuments. Not only is it the oldest continuously occupied synagogue space on the city’s West Side, but also it is a reminder of the significant role of Jews in the history of Venice in particular. Plus it’s a special place. Built in 1948, the façade displays Classical Revival–style features that were typical of that era. It resembles the synagogues of the Land of Israel in Late Antiquity. Meanwhile, the interior design reflects classical European Jewish artistic traditions of sanctuary decoration: a folk-art style full of iconographic details (e.g., lions).
In 2002, Mishkon was awarded a grant that funded a preservation and planning study for the sanctuary building. The resulting report in 2003 inventoried the building elements and identified those that are culturally significant—and thus warrant conservation—as well as those that are crucial for maintaining the site’s integrity.
Nearly two decades years later, the report is still a treasure trove of information about our building. It is being actively consulted because knowing the condition of a building’s materials and systems is essential in historic preservation.
The 2003 consultant team had recommended a wide range of treatments of various kinds, including structural engineering, plumbing, air conditioning, electrical circuits, art (stained) glass, and decorative arts issues, as well as architectural considerations. Their priorities for treatment were those that promised to maintain the occupants’ health and safety, as well as to conserve the building and its contents.
Although many of the team’s recommendations have been addressed in the intervening years, some have not. The latter include: addressing ongoing water intrusion problems; ensuring that the overhead steel tie-rods are properly tensioned and properly connected to the walls; and arranging for seismic strengthening of the structure. And in the meantime, certain components have reached the end of their useful life—such as the building’s roof membrane—and need to be replaced. These items are in my sights for being attended to during the next two years, as funds permit.
My aim is retain as much as possible the humble materials that were used in the original construction, because they are telling. They reflect both the congregation’s modest means and the scant resources that were available post-war. For example, the wall tiles in the bathrooms and kitchen are of several different colors and designs, bought at different times as funds became available, depending upon what the overstock was at the tile supplier, including factory seconds. Such features both define the building’s character and testify to its history.
Lower-priority projects (currently postponed for more than two years) include: repairing various losses of interior plaster due to water damage and plumbing repairs; repainting the interior; attending to preservation of the art (stained glass) windows; and restoring the decorative painting on the bimah and the painted-over murals on the eastern wall.
Finally, the 2003 report cites standard historic-preservation criteria to suggest that any future alterations to our sanctuary’s space be designed so as to retain the main room’s distinctive, grand, unitary character—and thus to be temporary and reversible.
No comments:
Post a Comment