Background, Adverse Impacts
It is
undisputed that the Coral Casino, which was constructed in 1937, is
the most architecturally significant building in Santa Barbara
County with a style that is not Hispanic or Mission Revival.
Internationally recognized Bay Area architect Gardner Dailey
designed the Coral Casino which he believed was one of his best
buildings. Gardner Dailey is considered to be one of the most
prominent Bay Area architects of the 20th Century.
(For more
information about Gardner Dailey and his works, see the website at
http://www.gardnerdailey.org).
In 1992, the
Montecito Community Plan formally recognized that the Coral Casino
is a valuable historic resource and should be protected. In 2002,
the Coral Casino was formerly designated as a County Historic
Landmark. The experts (including those who work for the Applicant)
all agree that the Coral Casino as it exists today qualifies for the
National Register, but questions have been raised if it would
qualify after the proposed project is constructed.
Noted Santa Barbara
Architectural Historian David Gebhard described the Coral Casino as
"a sophisticated version of the Regency Revival" combined with the
International Style Moderne. (an everyday modernism, the house of
William Wurster, Marc Treib, editor, 1995, page 170).
Some of the most
significant elements of Gardner Dailey’s original International
Style design for the Coral Casino were:
1. The emphasis on
horizontality,
2. A lightness of
construction,
3. Two open
Courtyards, one of which was surrounded by the original dining
room,
4. The tower,
5. The monumental
Main entrance, and
6. Two other open
Courtyards surrounded by structures on three sides [(1) swimming
pool and (2) on easterly side between cabanas and filtration
equipment.
David Gebhard and
Robert Winter wrote that:
"The International
Style developed in Europe in the 1920s in the hands of Le Corbusier,
Walter Gropius and Mies Van der Rohe. In the 1930s, William W.
Wurster, Gardner Dailey and several others introduced a mild version
of the International Style to the Bay area. Characteristics of the
International Style were listed as:
1. Light, horizontal
volumes often cantilevered over the landscape
2. Horizontality
strongly emphasized
3. Walls and glass
surfaces kept on the same plane
4. Stucco walls
conveying lightness
5. Flat roofs,
usually without parapets
6. Extensive use of
glass"
(The Guide to
Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California, David
Gebhard and Robert Winter, 1985, pages 578-9)
The proposed project
is an attempt to gain additional square footage for a hotel use. The
proposed project will destroy many of the most significant
architectural elements of Dailey’s original design and compromise
the architectural integrity of the landmarked Coral Casino.
CONTEMPORANEOUS
DESCRIPTIONS
The Architect and
Engineer magazine (October 1938) stated the Coral Casino was
designed "to provide complete privacy and shelter with maximum of
sun and air" and "wood has been used throughout the interior and
exterior, suggesting lightness and fitness to the location by the
sea."
The Architectural
Forum magazine (December 1940) stated:
"The chief feature of
the plan is a very large pool, with cabanas on one side and a
bathers’ terrace and bar on the other. Another court, reached
through the long gallery, has the dining facilities, the main dining
room being a light structure entirely glazed on both the ocean and
court walls. In general, despite the size of the building, its
treatment has been kept pleasantly informal, suggesting the intimacy
and easy livability of the better California houses.
"The plan reflects
the possibilities afforded by the mild climate. Courts provide all
needed protection from the weather during the better part of the
year, and where units must be more completely enclosed, large and
light sliding walls of glass are adequate."
INTACTNESS
The additions that
have been made to the Coral Casino since it was originally designed
are easily reversible, but the impacts of the proposed project
(second story restaurant) will not be easily reversible, if at all.
Some of these later additions were:
1. The open Courtyard
(see Architectural Publications and Upper Deck Pictures) was covered
in 1958 with a relatively light covering or roof. Subsequent roofs
were much heavier and required supporting columns where the open
Courtyard once existed. (see Interior Pictures)
2. The second story
Exercise facility (southwesterly of the swimming pool) was added in
the 1990's.
3. The cabanas, north
of the swimming pool, were moved forward next to the railing and the
walkway was moved to the rear.
Most of the other
additions, were not incompatible with the original design. The roof
over the Courtyard can be removed and the grand staircase down to
the former open Courtyard can be restored. The second story Exercise
facility can be removed with very little work and the cabanas
referred to above can be moved north to their original location
opening up an open walkway along Gardner Dailey’s railing.
ADVERSE
IMPACTS
Some of the most
adverse impacts from the proposed project are listed in the
following four sections
A. ADDING THE
PROPOSED RESTAURANT AT A SECOND STORY
1. Adds significantly
to the size, bulk and scale and are not in keeping with the original
design by Gardner Dailey.
2. Changes a building
primarily horizontal in appearance to one with a massing not in
conformance with this defining horizontal element of the original
style.
3. Changes a
primarily one-story building with a vertically proportioned tower to
a predominantly two story building. This reduces the impact of the
tower by cutting its actual free and clear height in half. The
original design appearance and dominance of the tower is compromised
further by the impacts from projecting awnings surrounding the new
second story restaurant and by glass-edged third floor (balcony)
with furniture groupings surrounding the tower at an unprecedented
third level. Or more simply stated, changes a one story building
with a multi-story tower into a two story building with a stump or
stub in place of the former towering element.
4. Changes a light
design to a heavy design with the addition of the second story
restaurant.
5. Changes a building
which has an identity compliant with the unique International Style
design, particularly that of a glazed wall building, with thin,
horizontal perimeter roof edges and features light in appearance, to
that of a heavy ponderous appearance with awning canopies extended
down from the roof and non-compliant with the unique original
stylistic identity.
6 The perimeter of
the original railings of the Courtyard would be irreversibly and
permanently lost.
7. The original sun
shade pavilion designed by Gardner Dailey which is located south of
the tower and the cabanas on the easterly side of the sundeck will
be irreversibly and permanently obliterated by the new restaurant
construction.
8. Removes the
lightly structured original cabanas with shallow flat roofs in favor
of a thick roof that would contain heating, ventilation and air
conditioning ducts and lighting for the restaurant and its kitchen.
9. The existing later
modifications to the original Gardner Dailey design are so far
reversible. However, the proposed second story restaurant would
present a dramatic alteration and addition affecting a large amount
of the original construction, and would be irreversible.
B. CREATION OF A NEW
ENTRANCE AT BASE OF THE LIGHTHOUSE TOWER
1. A significant
characteristic of Gardner Dailey designs was his emphasis on a main
entrance. The proposed additional entrance under the tower will
detract from his spectacular main entrance that frames the view of
the pool and Pacific.
2. The original
design as constructed had substantial landscaping at the base of the
tower, and focused attention appropriately on the main entrance.
Creation of a new entrance at the tower would result in an increase
of hardscaping and creating a loss of the Gardner Dailey, FAIA
design concept.
3. The narrow
existing door in the tower is a non-original element, added later as
a service area emergency exit and nowhere present in Gardner Dailey
FAIA’s 1937 design. To utilize and modify this non-historic door as
proposed is not compliant with the stated objectives of returning
the building to a more authentic condition of Gardner Dailey’s
design and concept.
C.
INTERIOR
1. The interior
columns in the ballroom and dining area (except for the two in the
center area which were installed to support the heavier roof and
dropped ceiling) represent the locations of the original restaurant
and Courtyard. The proposed redesign removes the columns which show
the location of the original restaurant and Courtyard. Given the
non-historic enclosure of the open Courtyard, the removal of these
columns unnecessarily further aggravates damage to the original
design. If the second story restaurant is constructed without the
columns, there will be nothing to show the existence of the former
dining room and Courtyard.
2. The columns in the
center of the ballroom were added to support a heavier roof that was
installed in the last 20 years. The original roof or covering that
was installed over the open Courtyard in 1958 did not require or
have those center supporting.
D. EAST ELEVATION AND
ALLEY
1. Another of Gardner
Dailey’s Courtyards, referred to as an "alley" or "dog run" is
located on the easterly side of the building. That Courtyard was
designed with some very interesting angles which add to the overall
design. The proposed project will remove that Courtyard and replace
it with additional storage space and flat wall on the eastern
facade.
2. Alteration and
additions on the east elevation to add storage irreversibly alters
the original facade. This reduces the amount of the Gardner Dailey
FAIA design unnecessarily and detracts from the original appearance.
3. Removal of the
original windows eliminates this important design feature from both
the east elevation and the cabanas along the east elevation.
4. There is no
provision to restore the detailing on the east elevation and its
historic fabric will be lost.
E.
PROPORTIONS
1. Gardner Dailey
gave great attention to details and proportions as can be seen from
his World War II Manila American Cemetery and Memorial which can be
viewed at
http://www.abmc.gov/ml.htm
. The restaurant will cause significant adverse impacts to the
proportions of the Coral Casio.
2. The swimming pool
is surrounded on three sides by buildings and can be considered
another one of Gardner Dailey’s Courtyards. The proposed plan will
add more cabanas on the east side of the swimming pool which will
undermine the proportions of the easterly wing of the Coral Casino
that face in a westerly direction and adversely impact the original
design.
| 
