The Paris of the West: San Francisco before the Great Earthquake and Conflagration

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

amazing thread...that old city hall was a real beaut.

Yeah, but

1872 Old City Hall begins construction at Larkin Street near Grove. Burials are moved to Golden Gate Cemetery.

1899 Old City Hall is finished in a swirl of scandal after 27 years of construction and $6 million in costs.

April 18, 1906 Earthquake of magnitude 8.3 on the Richter scale subjects Old City Hall to peak ground acceleration of from .40 to .60 gravity forces. The building that took 27 years to build falls in 28 seconds of significant seismic motion—only the dome remains intact.

Source: http://www.ceitronics.com/New_Pages/memorablefacts.html

The same reference says a subsequent investigation indicated the construction had been done properly but I'm pretty sure I've read there were a lot of questions about that at the time (the "swirl of scandal" mentioned above).

Also, the city hall we've got now may be somewhat less ornate, but it's actually more classically proportioned and, in the view of many, better architecture: "April 1978 San Francisco City Hall receives a special award from the American Institute of Architects as one of the finest examples of French Renaissance architecture in the country" and it has one of the 6 largest domes in the world (same source as quoted above)--the other 5 being St. Peter's, the US Capitol, Les Invalides in Paris, Il Duomo in Florence and St. Paul's in London.

[BigKidD]

Thanks for the interesting information BTinSF. You would not happen to have a photo of the statue in its old place near Market? Also, I read about the faulty construction of the original city hall and all I can say is that is corrupt politicians for you.

[Western Spaghetti]

Wow, fantastic photos. The earthquake was a shame. There were some nice looking buildngs back then.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by BigKidD

Thanks for the interesting information BTinSF. You would not happen to have a photo of the statue in its old place near Market?

Sorry they are small, but that all I can find for now:

At the old location:

The move:

New home:

All photos from http://www.jensenconservation.com/port/pioneermon.html

[BTinSF]

By the way, you gotta love this:


Source: http://www.printsoldandrare.com/sanfrancisco/002sfo.jpg

[BigKidD]

Thanks for the photos BTinSF. Also, it was such a shame for such a beautiful monument to be trashed like in the photo below,

It's a good thing that I was not old enough to see it in such shape.

[Echo Park]

This is one of my favorite threads on the found photos forum. It makes me wonder what San Francisco would be like had the earthquake not happened, if the city would be much bigger today.

[Complex01]

The photos are so surreal. What a truly great find and thanxs for sharing...

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by BigKidD

Thanks for the photos BTinSF. Also, it was such a shame for such a beautiful monument to be trashed like in the photo below,

It's a good thing that I was not old enough to see it in such shape.

You can still see it in that shape if you walk by that area much. The statue, which is called the "Pioneer Monument" by the way, is still the object of much dislike by native American groups (because it depicts, among other things, a native American being "converted" by a Spanish friar) who periodically splash it with red (for blood) paint. In recent years the cleanup happens more quickly, though.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Echo Park

This is one of my favorite threads on the found photos forum. It makes me wonder what San Francisco would be like had the earthquake not happened, if the city would be much bigger today.

I doubt it. San Francisco is confined by geography. How many people live in the densest 49 square miles of LA (I really don't know)? I ask not to set up a city vs city thing but just to point out that San Francisco isn't very big geographically and it could never have a population to rival cities like New York, LA or Chicago which cover much greater land areas. Now if it were allowed to annex the other "borroughs" (Oakland = Brooklyn, Berkeley = Queens etc) . . . .

And I bet more of the best of those old buildings were destroyed or hidden (because I repeat--a lot of them are still there behind a layer of sheet metal or other "modernist" cladding) in the 50s and 60s to "update" them than were destroyed in the quake. As a matter of fact, I've never read that large numbers of people left the area after the quake and the city itself was quickly rebuilt by the time of the Panama-Pacific Exposition of 1915 (9 years): see http://www.moah.org/exhibits/archives/1915/

[Frisco_Zig]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Now if it were allowed to annex the other "borroughs" (Oakland = Brooklyn, Berkeley = Queens etc) . . . .

I seem to recall someone telling me that there was a move to start annexing down the Peninsula into Colma, Daly City etc but that there was strong San Mateo country boosters who prevented it.

Its actually pretty odd when you look at other cities that it never happened and that San Francisco is a city/county.

The region would likely be better in many respects if it had happened

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

You can still see it in that shape if you walk by that area much. The statue, which is called the "Pioneer Monument" by the way, is still the object of much dislike by native American groups (because it depicts, among other things, a native American being "converted" by a Spanish friar) who periodically splash it with red (for blood) paint. In recent years the cleanup happens more quickly, though.

I guess I have been fortunate enough to not see it defaced the times I have been through the Civic Center.

[djvandrake]

Those photos are absolutely fascinating. What an incredible find and thanks for posting them. Incredible.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I doubt it. San Francisco is confined by geography. How many people live in the densest 49 square miles of LA (I really don't know)? I ask not to set up a city vs city thing but just to point out that San Francisco isn't very big geographically and it could never have a population to rival cities like New York, LA or Chicago which cover much greater land areas. Now if it were allowed to annex the other "borroughs" (Oakland = Brooklyn, Berkeley = Queens etc) . . .

that was always an interesting thought - how different would the area be (especially with regard to transit) if there were fewer distinct cities and counties. for ±7.5 million people, there are an awful lot of separate urban centers, transit systems, seats of government, etc. geographically though, everything but the peninsula is so separated from san francisco that it seems unlikely to have ever occured. new york city's 470 square miles of land area is nearly 10 times san francisco's but there aren't any points as remote from each other as the eastern shores of san francisco are from the western shores of emeryville, berkeley, and oakland. the bay is just so much bigger than the rivers that other cities jump over with ease.

[SpongeG]

cool pics

funny they would call it the paris of the west

last year when we were there me and my friend - we were around the city hall area - and we were like this totally reminds me of paris - we were like we could tell everyone we went to Europe

[BTinSF]

^^^We have many European tourists and it's a common view that they think it's like cities at home. Whether or not that's true, they seem to like it because they keep coming.

[rockyi]

Beautiful....Thanks for the photos.

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by rockyi

Beautiful....Thanks for the photos.

Thank you. I'll probably post another thread pertaining to SF in the past, which will contain historical photos I'm sure many people have not seen before. Also, I'm quite a history buff, so I find these photos very interesting.

[freeksregistration]

very nice pics The old city hall was amazing San Fransisco is today one of my favourit amarican city, such a shame of all the beautiful buildings