Downtown Fullerton: The Brick Myth, The Reality of Brick Veneer, and The Legacy of Schlock


We published a couple of posts a few days ago on the new parking structure planned on Santa Fe Avenue, and how it is proposed to be faced with brick veneer here and here .

You may remember that I got to thinking about why the city staff would tell the RDRC that the $40,000,000 parking structure must have brick veneer; and that I asked one of the RDRC Board members that very same question, and the answer I got was that staff told the Committee that the City has to use brick veneer because it was a “State” requirement to meet the CEQA guidelines. (I also noted that the use of fake brick is in complete contrast to the sustainable design the General Plan Advisory Committee has spend the last 3 years discussing and recommending to the City Council).

CEQA? Yes CEQA he said, because there’s a provision in the CEQA guidelines that requires mitigation of any visual impacts. In other words, since the new parking structure was being built with structural concrete, and the surrounding downtown has many brick-looking buildings, using the brick veneer would cause no visual impact on the environment. I say “brick-looking” because so many of the buildings in downtown Fullerton are faced with fake brick veneers, facades that are not historic, and some of which, in fact, were stuck-on older buildings during the course of Redevelopment in the last 30 years. And many of these were subsidized by the taxpayers of Fullerton.

How do I know this? I did a building facade survey of downtown from the RR tracks to Chapman and from Malden to Pomona. I documented the principal “building skin” of each structure. The results didn’t surprise me, but they may surprise you; they should shock the Redevelopment and Planning Department “experts” who not only have been tolerating, but actually promoting this material over the years – seemingly in an effort to keep downtown “historical” looking. Boy, did they get it wrong.

Here are the results of the survey:

24 Brick veneer

2 Flagstone veneer

9 Real brick & clay block

3 Glazed & fluted brick

24 stucco & plaster

20 Concrete, concrete block & terra cotta

And here is a useful overhead image with the various exterior materials colored in on each of the building’s footprint. Notice how few real brick buildings there are; and of these only a couple are red brick – the crap of choice among Fullerton’s bureaucratic tastemakers. The buildings with substantial brick venerers are pink.

Downtown Fullerton

Using CEQA to bolster the poor design choices of the past is pretty bad. Let’s hope this post will help end the travesty of bad and cheap looking architecture based on erroneous assumptions, and that California’s environmental laws will never be used again by city staff to foist this garbage on us.

More about

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

  1. #1 by The Fullerton Harpoon on September 19, 2009

    This is an extremely informative bit of work, admin. Just think: an actual inventory of Downtown’s building stock to understand what’s there.

    Has the crack Redevelopment staff ever done this? If not, why not? And how can the Planning Department recommend any CEQA findings without knowing the facts. That is incompetent and/or intentionally misleading.

    But does any one care? Let’s ask the Planning Director and the Redevelopment Director.

  2. #2 by LT Res on September 19, 2009

    The Fullerton Harpoon :
    …how can the Planning Department recommend any CEQA findings without knowing the facts.

    Even if they knew the facts they would ignore them. The staff will do and say anything even if it means to lie to get their way. We would all be so much better off if government employees just did their jobs without getting their personal opinions in the way of public opinion.

  3. #3 by Anonymous on September 19, 2009

    24 Brick veneer

    2 Flagstone veneer

    9 Real brick & clay block

    3 Glazed & fluted brick
    ________
    38 buildings that have elements that can fall on your head.

    Oh joy.

  4. #4 by 2nd time on FFFF's blog on September 19, 2009

    Why waste the money on veneer?

  5. #5 by Mr. Peabody on September 19, 2009

    Man, truth IS stranger than fiction! Why do they insist on plastering buildings with fake bricks? There’s no rhyme or reason to it.

    This reminds me of that movie, “The Brady Bunch.” Remember how that ever-so-talented architect, Mike Brady, would always come up with the same design for a building, no matter what its intended purpose was? Could’ve been a medical building, a fast food joint or a car wash, and all the designs he came up with looked exactly the same, just like that freaky 70′s house he lived in.

  6. #6 by Monkey C monkey do on September 20, 2009

    The reason why people do what they do is because that’s all they know.

  7. #7 by The Ghost of Mike Brady on September 20, 2009

    By clinging onto brick veneer as a design theme is a way city staff can reassure themselves they are recommending the right thing to the RDRC/city council/planning/etc….

    That’s how “we” do things when our talent or lack of is limited to what we know, which is limited to what we see.

  8. #8 by Chris Thompson on September 20, 2009

    Hey admin, isn’t brick veneer what I’ve got plastered all over my house? Dammit. The RDRC should have put a stop to it! Now what do I do?

    • #9 by The Fullerton Harpoon on September 20, 2009

      Too bad about that brick, Chris. Maybe you can put in for a Redevelopment rehab loan after the fact.

    • #10 by admin on September 20, 2009

      Chris, yes you have brick veneer plastered all over your house, but don’t worry, in about 25 years they will eventually fall off all by themselves :)

      At least our tax dollars didn’t pay for it.

  9. #12 by Lath & plaster on September 20, 2009

    A hell of a lot of yellow on that map, too. They must like stucco as well.

  10. #13 by Bricks Aplenty on September 20, 2009

    There’s as lot of common brick – on the backs of a lot of those old buildings – a lot of it virtually ruined by sandblasting. So maybe that’s what the brick bozos were wanting to emulate. Not a good sign! And since when could you justify a CEQA visual issue by looking at the backsides of buildings?

  11. #14 by Chris Thompson on September 20, 2009

    I’ll get Francis to broker it for me.

  12. #15 by admin on September 20, 2009

    Chris Thompson :
    I’ll get Francis to broker it for me.

    broker what?

    • #16 by Chris Thompson on September 20, 2009

      The retroactive redevelopment rehab loan. It was a joke. Don’t blog me man!

  13. #17 by Anonymous on September 20, 2009

    Fake brick, fake flagstone, fake old is for those who hold onto “what was” rather than looking at “what is.” Sentimentality used as a measuring stick for a better time is always fraught with risk. I am amazed that no one has gotten beaned on the head whilst walking from the Starbucks to Wahoo’s by a falling fake brick.

    As for those who willingly put it on their homes, my recommendation is that they decide if its necessary and also to see what are the alternatives.

  14. #18 by air guitar on September 20, 2009

    Anonymous :
    I am amazed that no one has gotten beaned on the head whilst walking from the Starbucks to Wahoo’s by a falling fake brick.

    That’s why I’ve been playing stairway to hell for the last 10 years, one of them dam bricks hit me on da head+ visit me under the Lemon St. bridge for my summer concert series. I’ll show you the scar on my hed and play stairway to hell 4 u

(will not be published)


 

Subscribe without commenting