An 11th-Hour Plea for the Preservation of Historic Mission Beach Park

“Mission Beach Playground Dedicated to the People of San Diego”--so thought California’s Spreckels family in 1925 when they opened their now-historic oceanfront amusement park.

Unfortunately, recent San Diego City Council action would lead us to believe that this city park and its historic structures are no longer an asset. It appears that the council’s commitment to preserving our civic amenities is waning.

The City Council, perhaps under the ever-growing pressure of parenting an exploding population, has taken to solving its problems through the narrowly focused logic of economics rather than a commitment to overall, sound urban policy.

In June, the City Council voted to approve a new development plan for Mission Beach Park, at Ventura Place and Mission Boulevard. It did not seem to matter to the council that several hundred Mission Beach residents were there to voice their opposition. The district’s councilman, Mike Gotch, and proponents of the plan presented it as a cure-all to the problems that exist in Mission Beach. Under examination, however, this project is actually taking more from its precious oceanfront site than it gives, ignoring the real sources of the area’s problems.

The Spreckels’ vision for Mission Beach, then only a slender strand of underdeveloped beach, was to build the finest amusement park on the West Coast. Their timing could not have been more appropriate. The industrious, commercialized eastern United States was reaching to its western edge for a new and attainable romance with leisure, recreation and entertainment.

Today three fine examples of this period’s architecture remain standing, a testimony to the source and importance of our heritage as a recreational mecca. These structures are the Mission Beach Plunge, the Roller Rink building and the ever-popular roller coaster.

Believing that these few remaining buildings have deteriorated beyond economic salvation, the City Council approved a plan that would demolish all but the roller coaster and replace the historic buildings with commercially oriented ones.

The council’s decision was an unfortunate one. Local and state historians believe that the existing buildings in Mission Beach Park are among the finest examples of San Diego’s unique and nationally accepted architectural style, Spanish Colonial Revival. The architects for these buildings skillfully combined the aesthetics of the ornate Panama California Exposition buildings in Balboa Park and the elegant, clean-lined austerity of Irving Gill’s work. The skillful articulation and classic beauty of these structures, no longer “feasible” to build, could be lost forever.

The proposal’s proponents claim that the development will carry on the amusement park’s architectural theme. It is easy to see, however, that the developers either do not understand the Spanish Colonial aesthetic or they enjoy mocking it.

The San Diego City Council has repeatedly shown a lack of consistency and commitment to its own policies of historic preservation and park management. Ten years ago the Gaslamp Quarter was blighted and unsavory. Today, thanks to the support of the council, Gaslamp is prospering and developing a new sense of pride. Similarly, Horton Plaza Park, a downtown landmark, was seen as an eyesore just two years ago. The City Council realized the potential and the rightful place of this landmark in San Diego’s past, present and future; now it is a downtown delight.

Why wasn’t that same vision of cultural continuity extended to The Plunge and Roller Rink buildings? The city helped create the very problems now being blamed on the buildings by allowing them to be boarded up, poorly maintained, disfigured and dishonored.

One problem seen repeatedly with city-owned property is the lack of preservation criteria. Developers submitting proposals for sites of historical or architectural significance should have to incorporate preservation in their plans. Without a restoration requirement, a developer has no obligation to consider restoring rather than razing a historical structure.

In the case of Mission Beach Park, several concerned citizens who believe strongly that the buildings are an important public resource volunteered their time and expertise to analyze alternatives for saving them. These volunteers, many of them professionals who deal with similar issues daily, identified solutions and distributed them to the council members in the form of a booklet and in public testimony at the council hearings. The council members ignored the information.

Another problem is the city’s use of “exclusive negotiations.” This happens when the city enters into an agreement with a single developer before all the planning issues are resolved. Originally intended to maintain consistency on large projects, this negotiating technique usually excludes competitive bidding. Without competition, the city places itself in the position of having to determine whether it is paying a fair price for what it is getting. One can easily see how deep the problems can run and how costs can escalate with this method of “negotiating.”

The chosen developer of Mission Beach Park has repeatedly stated that no other company has shown an interest in renovating the Plunge and Roller Rink buildings. This is not the case. It is the council that has already closed the door by selecting a developer without benefit of competition.

It may be too late to ask the council members to reverse their decisions regarding Mission Beach Park. But it is not too late to insist that they make a commitment to improve the way they handle the business of preservation of our city’s precious and dwindling public resources.

But it may not be too late to save Mission Beach Park. The development plan will soon come before the California Coastal Commission, whose duty it is to preserve our coastal resources. The commissioners are more likely to reject the current proposal if they know that the citizens of San Diego oppose it. Let your voice be heard. Let Mission Beach Park remain “Dedicated to the People.”