Historically significant features in the Social Hall and main corridor (Background Report)

CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES of our historic sanctuary building were identified in the Historic Structure Report (2003; “HSR”). These are the aspects that warrant historic preservation, in the eyes of architectural historians.

Below the jump, this post excerpts from here and there the HSR to describe and list the historically significant features in two spaces that some members are reportedly eyeing for decoration. As named in the HSR, those spaces are known as the corridor (B-01) and the Social Hall (B-02). 

Historically significant features of our main-floor restrooms/lobby (Condition Report)

CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES of our historic sanctuary building were identified in the Historic Structure Report (2003; “HSR”). These are the aspects that warrant historic preservation, in the eyes of architectural historians.

Below the jump, this post excerpts from here and there the HSR to describe and list the historically significant features in the four spaces that have been assigned the highest priority for rehabilitation/renovation. As named in the HSR, those spaces are known as the ladies’ lounge, ladies’ restroom, men’s restroom, and the narthex (lobby). 

Would the planned alterations meet Code for accessibility? (Speculation)

THE STATE HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE provides alternative minimum standards for alterations of qualified historical buildings or facilities. The section for accessibility can be found HERE. 

Our historic sanctuary building does qualify for the allowances under this code, according to our 2003 Historic Structure Report. And now that we are contemplating genuine alterations—not merely repairs or rehabilitation—it seems timely to explore what the applicable accessibility standards are. 

Below the jump, this post explores three aspects of the accessibility standards and how they would apply in our situation.…

Acquisition of photo of façade on 1948 Dedication Day (Announcement)

THE ONLY IMAGE that we have of our historic sanctuary’s façade as it looked on Day 1 was acquired just this past week, on 12/20/2024. (The 2003 Historic Structure Report was not aware of any photos like this one!)

Among the details that are visible, it shows a portable sign leaning against our building, which announces the dedication ceremony on 9/26/1948:

The cost of procuring a license for this image from the Santa Monica History Museum was donated by a generous Mishkon member. 

Below the jump, this post provides the full photo, plus a few words about it.…

Facilities management principles — and strategic budgeting (Statement)

STRATEGIC BUDGETING is about prioritizing funds for the efficient use of capital resources. The Building & Grounds Committee strives to set its own priorities accordingly.

Standard facilities management principles are what determine the order of priorities. And in Mishkon’s case, our sanctuary building’s status as a historic-cultural monument is also a factor. 

Generally speaking, our attention and money is best spent/invested in the following order, starting with the most important.

1. Life-safety (e.g., fire exits)
2. Integrity of the building envelope (against threats from: water intrusion, termites, earthquakes)
3. Important systems (whose failure would greatly disrupt normal activity)
4. Preventative maintenance, and improvements with a good return on investment (e.g., energy savings)
5. “Historic-cultural monument” status: attend to the “character-defining features”*
6. High-priority improvements (that would make the biggest difference)
7. Low-value maintenance

*In other words, which of these distinctive features, if they were restored, would have the biggest positive impact? Which of these features, if they were not preserved, would be the biggest loss to Mishkon and to Venice?

 

Why is this list important? 

Because if it is not followed, we are likely to end up with unhappy outcomes: catastrophes that were preventable, more money spent than was necessary, disruptions in our programs and services, undue burdens on our staff, etc.

Note that any visible “building improvements” — the exciting changes that you may be dreaming about — do not show up until #4 and #6 on this list!

DISCLAIMER: The above statement of principles and priorities is that of our committee only. It has not been officially endorsed by the board of directors. 

Historic marker is registered online

OUR HISTORIC SANCTUARY BUILDING has been entered into an international online database of historic markers. A nice page is devoted to our marker HERE on HMdb.org, which even gives its exact coordinates:

33° 59.879′ N, 118° 28.712′ W.

As for the rest of the content of the page about our marker, some of it is taken directly from the City’s plaque (which the write-up calls a “historic marker”)that we mounted on the sanctuary’s outside wall in 2021.

Mostly, however, it is taken from our poster (which the write-up calls an “interpretive sign”) inside our marquee sign, titled An Anchor for Venice / Ocean Park. 

In short, this website relates our history in terms that we ourselves have defined.

By the way, our marker has lots of company on that website. The Historic Marker Database currently lists such markers in 105 nations, including a total of 11,602 in California and 197,362 in the Unites States.

Accessibility versus historic preservation

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS that came up during a recent planning tour of the premises was: “How is Mishkon expected to trade off the competing considerations between making the building more accessible to mobility-challenged persons and preserving it as a historic-cultural monument? What do the relevant laws, codes, and preservation guidelines tell us?”

 

When questions like this arise, I consult the Historic Structure Report (“HSR”; 2003), because that is exactly what an HSR is for. As the National Park Service noted in 1991, “Historic Structure Reports are reference documents for the purpose of minimizing the loss of significant [historic] fabric during restoration or rehabilitation work.” 

Below the jump, this post summarizes what our HSR has to say on the matter. 

Revealing “new” photos from the 1948 sanctuary dedication

UNTIL TODAY, I had never known what the façade of Mishkon’s sanctuary looked like when the building was dedicated on 9/26/1948. But now I have come across the thumbnail images of two photographic negatives in the online archive of the Santa Monica History Museum. They held several surprises!

(As usual, click/tap on an image to enlarge it—
although in this case it’s a low-resolution image.)

This archive actually holds 15 film negatives of that auspicious day at Mishkon some 75 years ago — including of the Torah procession and the ceremonial ribbon-cutting. Given their glorious detail, they seem to have been made with a large-format camera. All of the images appear to differ from what is now in the possession of our synagogue.

Below the jump, I will focus on the building-related facts that I gleaned from examining the online thumbnail images.…

Mishkon serves its community in many ways

THIS POST is the 3rd in a series of 4 excerpts from our application last week for consideration for a grant award from the National Fund for Sacred Places, a non-profit organization. 

Below the jump, this post lists some of the ways that Mishkon Tephilo contributes to our local community — and in return deserves support from that community. 

Significance of our sanctuary building: Historic, cultural, and architectural

THIS POST is the 2nd in a series of 4 excerpts from our application last week for consideration for a grant award from the National Fund for Sacred Places, a non-profit organization. 

(As usual, click/tap on an image to enlarge it.)

Below the jump, this post sums up what makes our sanctuary building so special.

Why Mishkon’s historic building deserves the support of non-members

LAST WEEK, Mishkon applied to be considered for a grant award from the National Fund for Sacred Places, a non-profit organization. This post is the first in a series of four excerpts from our application. 

Below the jump, this post addresses a central question: Why should the National Fund support our congregation—as opposed to another church, synagogue, or mosque?

Friends of Mishkon — germinating a support organization

DURING THIS YEAR of the 75th anniversary of our historic sanctuary building, the time seems ripe for a Friends of Mishkon organization to emerge.

Friends of Mishkon would enable our former members, their families, denizens of Venice, and others to channel their good wishes for Mishkon in support of restoring our historic building. And it would enable that building to receive the loving attention that it deserves from more than just our current synagogue membership. It’s a win-win proposition.

Below the jump, this post outlines what this support organization might look like…

Tidbits about the Sanctuary, for its 75th Anniversary

OUR HISTORIC SANCTUARY building was dedicated on Sept. 26, 1948, which that year corresponded with the 22nd of Elul. (This year, the 22nd of Elul falls on Sept. 7–8.) In honor of the occasion, some of us have been delving into its history and features.

(As usual, click/tap on an image to enlarge it.)

Below the jump, you will find a list of interesting facts about the building.…

Governmental bodies and a front fence/gate (rev. 6/8/23)

FIVE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES get mentioned as possibly having some sway over a fence/gate in front of Mishkon’s historic sanctuary building. 

Below the jump, this post discusses each one — and what I know about its relevance to our situation.

City oversight of cultural-historic monuments

ACCORDING TO THE LOS ANGELES Cultural Heritage Ordinance, the Cultural Heritage Commission is vested with the responsibility to preserve the city’s monuments. The full text of the ordinance is available here.

This post outlines the Commission’s duties and procedures with regard to its oversight of monuments, drawing upon the ordinance itself and brief comments by the city’s preservation architect.

From the City’s preservation architect, on permitting requirements for our fence

From email on 5/2/23 by Lambert Giessinger, Senior Architect, Los Angeles City Planning, Office of Historic Resources:

[If] the proposed fence is allowed by-right…, the discussion then comes down to meeting the Secretary [of the Interior’s] Standards [for Rehabilitation]. The main concept here will be that the proposed fence is designed to be independent of the building and be “reversible” despite the fact that it would alter the open plaza in front of the property.

There is a balance to strike between maintaining the historic character of the property while allowing new challenges to be addressed (like security). Ideally, the fence will be as visually open and low as possible. Perhaps, it can have larger sections that open-up the plaza when there are services or events. Undoubtedly, these are the design issues you’re working through now. 

I’m happy to continue the conversation and review the concepts when they are ready.

A frontage security option that showcases the façade

ANOTHER APPROACH to enhancing security along Main St. is a 6'-high clear glass fence with 3 gates. The main advantage of this design is that it would minimally obscure the view of our historic building.

Here is a rough sketch. (It doesn’t show details involving the gates and planters.)

(As usual, click/tap on an image to enlarge it.)

Below the jump, I describe the features of this design.…

Mishkon as a landmark: Report summary

THIS POST gives you access to my 4-page summary of the Historic Structure Report (2003), a still-valuable yet little-known work that was prepared for Mishkon by a cadre of experts. Click HERE for the PDF file.

(As usual, click/tap on an image to enlarge it.)

Below the jump, I briefly describe the significance of the original report and of the new summary.…

About our sanctuary’s architecture (from the 2003 Historic Structure Report)

OUR TWO-STORY sanctuary building is one of the few remaining examples in Los Angeles of the Classical Revival style that was commonly used in the design of Jewish houses of worship through the 1940s. Its façade expresses the pride of Mishkon Tephilo’s members at the time: a dignified presence on Main Street that was also modest.

Architect’s early rendering
(As usual, click/tap on an image to enlarge it.)

This post interprets our temple in terms of the broader issues faced by many urban Jewish communities of that era. Its words are excerpted from the 2003 Historic Structure Report, and lightly edited for brevity.

What Do We Stand For? Preserving Local Aspirations and Traditions (5783 Galim article)

CLARIFYING WHAT WE PERSONALLY STAND FOR is a vital part of the High Holy Day season. Part of our answering that call can come from being a member of Mishkon. And part of what membership means is that together we wear the mantle of our local predecessors. 

Ocean Front Walk, 1927
(courtesy of westland.net/venicehistory)

Temple Mishkon Tephilo is both a product and a symbol of the longstanding Jewish presence in Venice and Ocean Park. So it seems timely for me to briefly recap some highlights of that local history.