1921 Legion of Honor Museum: San Francisco

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,738
Reactions
19,364
NOTE: I think there could be too much in common between the building in this thread, and this one here.

Legion of Honor (museum)
california_Palace_of_the_Legion_of_Honor.jpg

Legion of Honor (museum) - Wikipedia

George Adrian Applegarth
Architect
George Adrian Applegarth began his professional career as a draughtsman for the architectural firm Wright & Sanders in San Francisco. After studying drawing at the University of California, Berkeley with Bernard Maybeck, Applegarth received his diploma in 1906 from the Ecole des Beaux Arts.
  • Appears the guy did not like having his pictures taken. I only found two, the one below, and this one here.
George Adrian Applegarth.jpg

1876-1972

The Legion of Honor Museum was the gift of Alma de Bretteville Spreckels, wife of the sugar magnate Adolph B. Spreckels. The building is a full-scale replica, by George Applegarth and H. Guillaume, of the French Pavilion at the 1915 Panama–Pacific International Exposition, which in turn was a three-quarter-scale version of the Palais de la Légion d'Honneur also known as the Hôtel de Salm in Paris, by Pierre Rousseau (1782).
  • At the close of the exposition, which was located just a few miles away, the French government granted Spreckels permission to construct a permanent replica of the French Pavilion, but World War I delayed the groundbreaking until 1921.
  • The museum building occupies an elevated site in Lincoln Park in the northwest of the city, with views over the Golden Gate Bridge. Most of the surrounding Lincoln Park Golf Course is on the site of a potter's field called the "Golden Gate Cemetery" that the City had bought in 1867. The cemetery was closed in 1908 and the bodies were relocated to Colma. During seismic retrofitting in the 1990s, however, coffins and skeletal remains were unearthed.
So, here is its 1921 construction, I guess. May be a possible reassembly. To be honest, it does not look like a new building to me, then again, what do I know? May be @jd755 could dig up some additional construction photographs looking more convincing.

Not sure which one of the below two images should come first. By the way, which one do you think should be above the other?

legion_museum_SF.jpg


Legion of Honor museum_4.jpg

An official explanation for the images below is as follows:
  • Between March 1992 and November 1995 - its seventy-first anniversary - the Legion underwent a major renovation that included seismic strengthening, building systems upgrades, restoration of historic architectural features, and an underground expansion that added 35,000 square feet. Visitor services and program facilities increased, without altering the historic façade or adversely affecting the environmental integrity of the site. The architects chosen to accomplish this challenging feat were Edward Larrabee Barnes and Mark Cavagnero.
  • In this 1994 photo, workers from Hansell Phelps Construction are operating 60 feet below the main entrance of the Legion of Honor museum, constructing what is now the lower level exhibit spaces.
Legion of Honor museum_5.jpg


Legion of Honor museum_6.jpg

Some sources and links:
KD: While I find it rather interesting that "replicas" of those Expo buildings resurface here and there, this is not why I started this thread. I know we have some construction gurus on this forum i.e. @ISeenItFirst. I was wondering if everything looks and sounds legit in reference to this little "renovation".

Specifically wanted to know what the below openings could be.

Legion of Honor museum_8.jpg


Legion of Honor museum_7.jpg
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
656
Reactions
1,390
Stream of consciousness as usual, more thought than conclusions:

This one confuses me. For a few reasons. The weirdest thing I see, is in the photos with the openings. Its not the openings, either, but something weirder. See the anlged stone supports? Those appear to be original to the structure. The happen to line up with the openings as well as best I can tell.

Those make no sense as part of a foundation. They only make sense to me if the ground floor we are looking at was more of a balcony. I cant recall having seen anything quite like it before. Wait, that is not true. While never having seen it in person, and certainly never heard of it in stone, I have heard of something similar being done to rest a building with a larger footprint on a existing foundation with a smaller footprint. Specifically, I believe the infamous building 7 had a steel structure (not visually, but structurally similar) to tie the larger building to a smaller foundation. If that is what they are, then the steel supports are mostly superfluous, as the forces are already being directed to the existing foundation.

About the steel supports, we can assume (as we cant confirm one way or the other) that the verticals are resting on some kind of load spreading support. What is the other end of the horizontal supported by? Is there a matching vertical on the other side of that wall in some sort of basement or lower level? Are they just beam pocketed into an existing stone wall? It is hard to tell.

There is so much going on here. What about those holes right at the base of the wall? Seem to be uniformrly spaced with an arched top, and there seems to be some kind of light associated with some of them, although some of them almost look like a silhouette of a person.

I think now they are actually planning to conceal that section (the section with the angled stone, between to existing stone wall and the new steel verticals) internally completely, except for the center front.


I sure hope Jd can come up with some additional photos of this one.
kd_separator.jpg

Wow, what was I thinking. I was way off.

After more thought and looking, i think these look like foundations. All the way, and this is not really a contender for a mud flood building. I've seen lots of foundations like this, actually, its just usually hidden by all the dirt. (I guess i didn't actually SEE them, but you know what I mean).

Those square holes, are holes for new footers to be placed to support the new foundation.
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,738
Reactions
19,364
What would be the reason for such a deep foundation?
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
656
Reactions
1,390
What would be the reason for such a deep foundation?
Excellent question, and that is exactly what I think led me down the wrong path.

Without knowing more about the geology of the location at the time it would be hard to say. I am no soil engineer anyways, but there are some things I can tell you, and perhaps even proffer an 'off the top of my head' theory.

This stone building is incredibly heavy. Given what we have come to learn about the radical transformation of the area in the not so distant past, it could very well be that that is the depth needed to go to find naturally compacted and stable soil on which to lay a foundation.

You cannot just compact the soil. It is always best to lay a foundation on newly exposed undisturbed soil. Anything else, should be much more carefully engineered. Believe it or not, there is "engineered" dirt (they call it 'fill') for this specific purpose. (for all we know that is what that darker soil is, pouring in the corner in the one photo, where they havent completed yet building the wall. I wish these were better pics, its hard to discern a whole heck of alot. )

Anyways, you can see that they specifically left the soil around the existing footers, in exactly the way you would do to protect the structural integrity of them. The openings all look meant to direct the force to point loaded footers. It does share some similarities to door and window openings, but I am convinced from the photos, these walls below grade were never meant to be seen. (I'm glad I don't get called out on terminology much on here, Id probably get torn up. In this case I think they would be most accurately called piers rather than footers, but I digress). Its another aspect that threw me off, today we would typically run a continuous footer beneath the entire wall, rather point loading it on piers this way. Perhaps this provided a benefit in an unstable soil environment, I dont know, I would have to dig deeper, no pun intended.

Busy Busy, gotta run.
 
Top