Construction bidding-specs document found, from circa 1940 (Background Report)

ON AUGUST 1, our president (Sol Ortasse) came across a double-folded document consisting of some two dozen typewritten pages. It is wrapped in blue construction paper, which is labeled in colored pencil as “Specifications for building Mishkon Tephilo congregation Venice, Calif.” Sol found it in the mezzanine’s left storage room, in a long plastic storage bin with a green lid. 

In briefly looking over this document, I did not see anything to suggest that it would immediately help our architect or other projects. However, it does contain some potentially useful information if carefully evaluated. It also generates a new albeit minor historical mystery about our sanctuary building’s creation. 

While waiting for the document to be digitally scanned so that it can be examined more carefully, I will share some initial observations, below the jump.…

Here is the title page.…

Let us put this document in the context of the known timeline of the erection of our historic sanctuary building, as summed up by the 2003 Historic Structure Report:

An additional lot was purchased in 1939, and in 1941 Mishkon Tephilo undertook the design and construction of a new 700-plus seat synagogue which would face out onto Main Street.

The initial building permit was dated May 16, 1941. 

Hence I have concluded that this document was composed in 1940 or 1941, as preparation for the construction of our sanctuary building. It contains an architect’s detailed specs for contractors to use in bidding the job. (Unfortunately the accompanying drawings do not seem to be extant. At any rate, they are not among the other docs in the same bin.)

About the architect

Regarding Arthur W. Hawes, the architect whose name/address appears on the title page, the big surprise is that he is not mentioned in our Historic Structure Report. It credits the architect of record as Herman C. Light. 

The involvement of Mr. Light is indeed supported by the 5-5-1941 building permit, as reproduced in the 2019 Property Condition Report (p. 57), and by the 8-30-1945 building permit that sought to resume construction after the war. Yet from this newly found document, it is obvious that Mr. Hawes also put a great deal of thought into every aspect of the details of the construction of this synagogue building. 

An internet search reveals that Arthur Wellesley Hawes (1873–1951) was a British-trained architect from Canada, practicing under his own name. According to the Architectural Resources Group (in a 2008 report; p. 59), “The diverse repertoire of Arthur W. Hawes includes synagogues, mortuary buildings, and residential structures.” And in a draft registration form composed circa 2020 (Section 8, p. 60), for listing a certain historic district in the National Register of Historic Places, he is described as “a notable Los Angeles architect” whose known work “marks him as a master of both Period Revival and Streamline Moderne residential design.” His oeuvre in the 1930s and 1940s included “single-family and multi-family residences across the city, as well as a number of commercial buildings,” such as the 1940 Crest Theater in Westwood. 

The fact that a set of bidding specs could be developed by one architect, and yet another architect’s name ultimately appears on the initial building permit, is something of a mystery. So I ran it by Peyton Hall, the (now-retired) architect who supervised the preparation of our Historic Structure Report. He nonchalantly observed as follows:

Mysterious indeed; however, it is not strange, from my perspective. My comments are speculation, not founded in fact or research. There are architects who specialize as spec writers, and certified spec writers who are not architects at all. Perhaps Hawes was better qualified, in any case, then Light, to write specs (which are arguably more important in quality control than drawings). Perhaps Mishkon Tephilo needed to augment their construction/bid documents? Perhaps Light was not available or out of favor? [Also,] a building official would not necessarily have required or reviewed specifications, so as construction documents, the specs might have been quite aside from the permit drawings and the building permitting and inspection process.

Dating the document

These specs discuss the planned excavation for, and creation of, the basement walls and floor. Hence they must predate the start of construction in 1941.

The specs also discuss the brickwork for the walls, which according to the 1941 and 1945 building permits was indeed the original design—and which was replaced by wood-frame walls by the time of the 1947 building permit. This establishes a pre-1945 date for this document, which further confirms the preceding conclusion. 

Remember, the construction was interrupted by America’s entry into World War II, and then after the war the sanctuary building’s design changed dramatically. Furthermore, it was no longer supervised by an architect (according to the 1947 building permit), and it was handled by a different contractor than the one used before the war (according to the 1948 Dedication Book).

Can we rely upon these specs?

It seems very likely that the sanctuary’s initial construction (1941) proceeded to follow these bidding specs. So I consider them a reliable guide for our understanding of the portion of the sanctuary building that was completed prior to the war, in particular (according to an 8-30-1945 building permit) the concrete basement walls and the first-floor steel beams.

(Unfortunately, because no architect was involved in 1947–48, it is unlikely that we will ever find a similar list of design specs for our sanctuary as it was ultimately built. The same goes for architectural drawings!)

Sampling of potentially useful details

Concrete

The specs include a formula for the concrete to be mixed. They note that the basement floor is to be reinforced with 6"x6" #10 wire mesh. (This latter detail will be useful if we construct an elevator, because it will require penetrating that floor.)

Another interesting detail, under the subheading WATERPROOFING CONCRETE, is the following requirement:

All concrete below a point 6" above the exterior finished grade, except footings, also that in steps to front entrance, to be waterproofed with Anti-Hydro. Use 1 quart of Anti-Hydro per bag of cement.

This would be good news if it were indeed reliable. Anti-Hydro is an additive that increases the strength of concrete and decreases its permeability to water. Our concrete is said to be unusually strong, and yet it unfortunately seems to admit water readily. So this notice puzzles me a bit.  

Soundproofing

Under the subheading SOUND DEADENING, the specs note:

All toilet room walls adjoining auditorium and social hall to be soundproofed with double staggered studs and Celotex, or other approved method.

I do not know whether that practice was ultimately carried out, but it seems likely—given that in my experience, the flushing of toilets in the men’s room is not audible in the adjacent sanctuary. Thus the possibility ought to be taken into account. Note that Celotex insulation board is said to have been made from bagasse (a sugar cane by-product), yet some kinds contained asbestos.

Flooring

The architect envisioned a considerably more sumptuous facility than what was ultimately built. For example, under the heading TERRAZZO AND TILE WORK, the specs call for terrazzo flooring in the basement’s kitchens, toilets, ladies lounge, and Social Hall (“except that portion specified to be laid with maple flooring”). The fact that vinyl tile was eventually used instead (which is considerably less attractive but also less expensive) is yet another indication of the congregation’s financially constrained circumstances by the time of construction in 1947–48.