The State Historical Resources Commission unanimously
decided on Nov. 9 to nominate University House for a position on the National
Register of Historic Places. The 6-0 vote could make it much more difficult for
UCSD to move forward with its plans to demolish the La Jolla Farms mansion.
Deemed uninhabitable in 2004 due to extensive mold and poor
structural integrity, the university has since been looking for a way to
rebuild on the property.
UCSD Deputy Director of University Communications Dolores
Davies said that the house holds a historical importance to the campus, as
almost every chancellor has resided on the property since the university
purchased it in 1967. The house has also served as a functional setting for
assemblies and other past events hosted by the university.
Opposition to the project has come from a number of eclectic
sources, including historians and American Indian groups that have a vested
interest in the property’s archeological and historical value. Despite
suggestions that the house be built on a different site to reduce public
protest, the university decided that it was not a feasible option.
“There have been people associated with the university that
feel it would be a mistake for them to dispose of the property,” Davies said.
Among the groups opposing the house’s demolition is the La
Jolla Historical Society, which until late last year was still negotiating with
the university to keep the house intact. Don Schmidt, a La Jolla resident and board
member of the society, said that dwindling progress on the matter led LJHS to
create a committee to apply for the national registry.
Built by historical architect William Lumpkins in 1952 in a
style called “Pueblo revival,” historians view the property’s unique
architecture as an important resource to the community and country. The house
also sits atop an ancient American Indian burial ground — a pivotal concern of
American Indian groups — that was found to contain skeletal remains dating back
to roughly 9650 B.C. In addition to disrupting the ancient resting place,
reconstructing a new house raised environmental concerns over plant and
wildlife situated on the property.
Although the national-registry designation does not prevent
the university from moving ahead with its plans, Courtney Coyle, an
environmental attorney who helped one of the Indian tribal nations submit the
application to the SHRC, said that raising awareness across different
communities about the property’s significance would be the effort’s primary
benefit.
“The designation would elevate the status of the property
and become more of a pubic relations issue that they have to deal with,” Coyle
said.
Stagnated construction would give way to additional scrutiny
of what is being done and how, Coyle said. University officials would have to
show that they have done their best to preserve the site’s integrity and could
find no way to preserve the house, she added.
An environmental impact report released in June detailed
several different options for refurbishing or demolishing the house on the
property. The university cited the lessened costs of demolition as evidence
against renovating the mansion.
Schmidt said he disagrees with the finding, and said LJHS
has since hired consultants to survey the property. While they found the house
needs rehabilitation, they said it is not falling apart. Additionally, he added
that the house can be refurbished for less money and should be kept as a
“moment in time” for both La Jolla residents and future UCSD students.
“This is the kind of historic structure that
preservationists want to keep intact, not just elements of it taken off the
site,” Coyle said.
The university has proposed several alternatives to combat
the loss, including using the house’s frame as garden walls or providing a
detailed video history of the site.
Schmidt, along with other historians and preservationists,
said that these are unsatisfactory means of upholding the property’s
archeological and historical value.
“Why, when you know you have a historical resource, would
you create a little historic petting zoo?” he said. “I mean, would we tear down
the Eiffel Tower and leave a few scraps of metal as remnants?”
Davies said the university has yet to review the designation
in order to best address the issues it presents. A final proposal was meant to
be submitted in September, but now the historical designation must be taken
into account before submitting the project for approval.
The SHRC is expected to make a final decision on the
nomination within 60 to 90 days.
