John King (SF Chron, Tuesday Feb 22: King Facadism) has written an article about facadism. SFHP welcomes his examples of San Francisco putting its best preservation foot forward. Compare 88 Townsend Street to SFHP's example on Folsom Street.
However, King should have stopped when the going was good. His characterization of the 1924 structure on Howard Street as "The frills are surface decoration [in reference to the sheet metal finish], nothing more," and thereby dismissing its historic significance, belie his understanding of historic preservation. Applied decoration is the very reason many San Francisco buildings are historic landmarks. Also, this building's significance is not merely architectural or surficial, but rooted in its history with Guilfoy Cornice Works, a renown San Francisco company - see example (first and second to last paragraphs): Guilfoy Award). King would do well to read the criteria for landmark status used by the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources and The City's own landmarks ordinance - especially those criteria that are not design, style, or architectural. Maybe then he would not proclaim that this building should be demolished just because his (perceived) favorite architect is the designer of the new development.
Comments